I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbugNow you almost have to be absolutely squeaky clean - your intelligence must pass a certain threshold, you can't have gotten into any trouble, and your health has to b.
Kyle wrote a book to get out the truth since so many still tell lies and don't know the laws they say he violated. He was on Piers Morgan. For every step forward Piers takes, he must take about 20 backwards. What moronic questions he asked.
I will fault Kyle on one thing - he needs to learn that militias were every able-bodied male and that they were not government defined armies like the US Army or National Guard. Maybe I'm a moron, but I thought militias were citizens who fought together and had a chain of command, but they were not obligated by anyone and if trouble broke out at home, they were free to leave as they wished. Am I wrong?
Regardless, the questions were stupid attempts at gotchyas.
If I had a time machine, I'd do the meme thing and go back and tell the FFs to not just write it so a 5-year-old would understand, but to simply state it as "For the individual citizen to live free from tyranny, the right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed."
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse was unprovoked? That would not be according to the facts of the case as he didn't attack anybody. If you are saying his attackers where unprovoked, well, different story.Since when did an unprovoked attack on someone become a Constitutional Right?
Ha.. nope - quite the opposite.What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse was unprovoked? That would not be according to the facts of the case as he didn't attack anybody. If you are saying his attackers where unprovoked, well, different story.
Gotcha. I read you the other way and it didn't make sense. All clear now.Ha.. nope - quite the opposite.
HIS ATTACKERS were unprovoked, yet they're still asserting that THEIR rights were violate.
The article in the original post says that the victims father is using the fact that HIS SON's constitutional rights were violate... "The father of Anthony Huber, one of two men shot and killed by Rittenhouse, filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son's constitutional rights and resulted in his death." That's the first thing that jumped out to me in the OP's article.