Kyle Rittenhouse being sued

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • N3uka

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 26, 2013
    2,968
    College Park
    In any case, joining the military is exponentially more difficult now than it once was, and it's fairly exclusionary. Kyle Rittenhouse would have issues getting through MEPS, guaranteed.
    And they wonder why recruitment can't meet goals
     

    XCheckR

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,129
    HdG
    Now 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.
    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 litterbug
     

    K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,527
    AA county
    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."


    I watched this when it came out and not one of the commie shit_heads could resist repeating one or more of the lies about Rittenhouse so they convinced me to go buy his book just to piss them off.
     

    Crazytrain

    Certified Grump
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 8, 2007
    1,625
    Sparks, MD
    Since when did an unprovoked attack on someone become a Constitutional Right?
    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.
     

    GenoBluzGtr

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2018
    162
    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Crazytrain

    Certified Grump
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 8, 2007
    1,625
    Sparks, MD
    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.
    Gotcha. I read you the other way and it didn't make sense. All clear now.
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,044
    Messages
    7,220,247
    Members
    33,124
    Latest member
    Lb7justin27

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom