so much for Biden’s plan to defeat Covid

[Jim in CT]

i’d like to hear Biden and Faucci tell
me more about what I should do.

Personally, i don’t feel
biden is responsible for all of the good or bad that happens in his first year, as he inherits a lot of
momentum on such things

but the lefties here give him credit for every job created, for every stock that goes up, and never dream of
blaming him for anything bad that happens.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cov...UfJQnmJCoextbI

[Raider Ronnie]

Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$
That’s the only plan they had from the start.
You think any members of Congress & others in power in Washington own huge shares in pharmaceutical companies ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

When Stephen Colbert was talking about Pfizer’s new Covid drug, he said that most of the people who would need it would be anti-vaxxers, & that they would have to actually take it for it to work…
“So the administration has renamed it to: Dr. Lindell’s Magic Horse Elixir”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

This thread is stupid. Jim, Biden inherited covid deaths as they were peaking nationwide and before vaccination rates were that high, it dropped significantly and now we have had another huge push with delta.

You've officially eclipsed Pete. Do you want a sash and scepter?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This thread is stupid. Jim, Biden inherited covid deaths as they were peaking nationwide and before vaccination rates were that high, it dropped significantly and now we have had another huge push with delta.

You've officially eclipsed Pete. Do you want a sash and scepter?

"Biden inherited covid deaths as they were peaking nationwide"

Which is what I said, if you had read it.

He also inherited decreasing unemployment and a vaccine infastructure that was jabbing a million people a day. But you lefties here give him full credit for creating those jobs and for the vaccines. Have you ever said Biden inherited good jobs growth and vaccine infastructure form Trump? I'd bet not.

So according to you, he gets credit for the good things he inherited, but no blame for the challenges he inherited? Sounds reasonable.

Here's what I wrote, I guess it went over your head...

i don’t feel biden is responsible for all of the good or bad that happens in his first year, as he inherits a lot of momentum on such things

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This thread is stupid. Jim, Biden inherited covid deaths as they were peaking nationwide and before vaccination rates were that high, it dropped significantly and now we have had another huge push with delta.

You've officially eclipsed Pete. Do you want a sash and scepter?

he said he had a plan....plan isn't really working

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

he said he had a plan....plan isn't really working

when does his plan take effect? when does biden own the results?

spence’s answer - after we have a cure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

New documents show Trump Admin silenced CDC at start of pandemic, tried to alter expert scientific reports, and then tried to delete evidence they were doing so.

We were the most prepared nation in the world but now more than 750,000 Americans have died.
Meanwhile if Biden said that you shouldn’t hold your breath, over half of Texas would die
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New documents show Trump Admin silenced CDC at start of pandemic, tried to alter expert scientific reports, and then tried to delete evidence they were doing so.

We were the most prepared nation in the world but now more than 750,000 Americans have died.
Meanwhile if Biden said that you shouldn’t hold your breath, over half of Texas would die
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many americans were getting vaccinated per day, on the day biden took over, pete? Zero? Or a million?

go do some more selective editing to make it seem like Tim Scott is a klansmen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how many americans were getting vaccinated per day, on the day biden took over, pete? Zero? Or a million?

go do some more selective editing to make it seem like Tim Scott is a klansmen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As the media you believe in would say, as reported today, Tim Scott is reportedly a Klansman
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As the media you believe in would say, as reported today, Tim Scott is reportedly a Klansman
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete you got caught editing words to
make a republican look like he was saying something other than what he actually said.

you constantly reply to things no one ever said.

if your beliefs are so flimsy that you have to physically alter the words that someone else said before you can respond, what does that say about your beliefs?

Nothing good.

EVEN YOU know you couldn’t reply to what Cawthorn actually said. So you changed his words.

You’re a complete fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete you got caught editing words to
make a republican look like he was saying something other than what he actually said.

you constantly reply to things no one ever said.

if your beliefs are so flimsy that you have to physically alter the words that someone else said before you can respond, what does that say about your beliefs?

Nothing good.

EVEN YOU know you couldn’t reply to what Cawthorn actually said. So you changed his words.

You’re a complete fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like he should run for president as a democrat...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again you claim baloney
The representative you claim to be an example of moral rectitude?
A typical example of the type of leader you glorify

Madison Cawthorn was a 21-year-old freshman at a conservative Christian college when he spoke at chapel, testifying about his relationship with God. He talked emotionally about the day a car accident left him partially paralyzed and reliant on a wheelchair.

Cawthorn said a close friend had crashed the car in which he was a passenger and fled the scene, leaving him to die “in a fiery tomb.” Cawthorn was “declared dead,” he said in the 2017 speech at Patrick Henry College. He said he told doctors that he expected to recover and that he would “be at the Naval Academy by Christmas.”

Key parts of Cawthorn’s talk, however, were not true. The friend, Bradley Ledford, who has not previously spoken publicly about the chapel speech, said in an interview that Cawthorn’s account was false and that he pulled Cawthorn from the wreckage. An accident report obtained by The Washington Post said Cawthorn was “incapacitated,” not that he was declared dead. Cawthorn himself said in a lawsuit deposition, first reported by the news outlet AVL Watchdog, that he had been rejected by the Naval Academy before the crash.
Shortly after the speech, Cawthorn dropped out of the college after a single semester of mostly D’s, he said in the deposition, which was taken as part of a court case regarding insurance. Later, more than 150 former students signed a letter accusing him of being a sexual predator, which Cawthorn has denied.

Yet four years after Cawthorn spoke at the chapel, the portrait he sketched of his life provided the framework for his election in November as the youngest member of the U.S. House at the minimum age of 25 years old. A campaign video ad repeated his false claim that the car wreck had derailed his plans to attend the Naval Academy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never came close to saying Cawthorn is a moral authority. i said, correctly, that you deceptively edited his comment.

if Cawthorn is such an idiot, why do you have to deceptively edit his words before you respond to them?

this isn’t about Cawthorn, it has nothing to do with him at all. it’s about you being a liar about what he said, trying to paint him as something he’s not. this is about you, not about him.

you’re having a rough month pete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i never came close to saying Cawthorn is a moral authority. i said, correctly, that you deceptively edited his comment.

if Cawthorn is such an idiot, why do you have to deceptively edit his words before you respond to them?

this isn’t about Cawthorn, it has nothing to do with him at all. it’s about you being a liar about what he said, trying to paint him as something he’s not. this is about you, not about him.

you’re having a rough month pete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The morality relates to the matter of to whom are you dangerous. Being armed is being dangerous. Police officers, military personnel, body guards, secret service, are armed and dangerous to the bad guys. Patriotic armed citizens are also dangerous to the bad guys.

Being moral is being on the side of the good guys, and being dangerous to the bad guys.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I didn’t post every other word he said in his life either
Just what does being armed and dangerous have to do with morals?
Is that some special Catholic ruling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

to you, being armed is inconsistent with being moral?

pete, slow down, take a few deep breaths.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Was Kyle hunting people?

A piece by Kurt Eichenwald

"Recently, I gave a deep dive why - based on the law & evidence presented at trial - the Rittenhouse verdict was correct, even though he's a miserable punk & the GOP celebration is obscene. Today, a new point: the case shows why open carry laws are a threat to this country as I wrote in the last thread, all that mattered in reaching the verdict was Rittenhouse's state of mind: did he believe he was in imminent threat of bodily harm. That's the law. The evidence supported his belief of that was reasonable. However, it *also* supported that his victims - Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz - could believe *Rittenhouse* posed an imminent threat of bodily harm *to them.* Eliminate Rosenbaum, because his case is more complex. No doubt, Huber & Grosskreutz were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as an active shooter because, in fact, that is what he was. Rittenhouse's belief that he was in imminent threat did not change the fact that Huber and Grosskreutz looked at a guy firing a gun at people and concluded that he was randomly killing people. Huber hitting him with the skateboard is not only reasonable, it is exceptionally brave. Grosskreutz, the survivor, testified he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and pointed a gun he was carrying at him, but was shot before he could shoot.

So *no one* thought they were committing a crime. They *all*were acting in self-defense. Yet it was Rittenhouse who lit the match by bringing an assault rifle with a bunch of thugs to a protest, and being allowed to stay there as an adjunct to law enforcement. But Rittenhouse had not committed a crime in doing so: Open carry with any type of legal gun is legal there. So, an assault rifle, marching down the street? The law says nothing.

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy. And the GOPrs who are celebrating this are declaring that brave people who confront who they believe is an active shooter are scum if they have the "wrong" politics.
Those people should not have been there at all. But suppose their motives were pure, and they all had guns legally, and they were all there with concealed carry. What did they lose? The ability to act like tough guys. The ability to intimidate. And the likelihood that the gun would create a scenario where everyone can be shot, and no one committed a crime.

Many people object to concealed carry. If a state has carry laws, I prefer concealed. Open carry is an invitation to reckless faux tough-guys who think intimidating the unarmed makes them masculine, the Rittenhouse shooting is a tragedy in a lot of different ways. But don't miss where the focus should be: On the laws that allowed this to happen. And never forgive GOPrs who spit on those who tried to stop who they believed was an active shooter, simply because these GOPrs don't like the politics of the victims. Laughing about the death of those who believed they were risking their lives for others is sociopathic."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Was Kyle hunting people?

A piece by Kurt Eichenwald

"Recently, I gave a deep dive why - based on the law & evidence presented at trial - the Rittenhouse verdict was correct, even though he's a miserable punk & the GOP celebration is obscene. Today, a new point: the case shows why open carry laws are a threat to this country as I wrote in the last thread, all that mattered in reaching the verdict was Rittenhouse's state of mind: did he believe he was in imminent threat of bodily harm. That's the law. The evidence supported his belief of that was reasonable. However, it *also* supported that his victims - Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz - could believe *Rittenhouse* posed an imminent threat of bodily harm *to them.* Eliminate Rosenbaum, because his case is more complex. No doubt, Huber & Grosskreutz were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as an active shooter because, in fact, that is what he was. Rittenhouse's belief that he was in imminent threat did not change the fact that Huber and Grosskreutz looked at a guy firing a gun at people and concluded that he was randomly killing people. Huber hitting him with the skateboard is not only reasonable, it is exceptionally brave. Grosskreutz, the survivor, testified he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and pointed a gun he was carrying at him, but was shot before he could shoot.

So *no one* thought they were committing a crime. They *all*were acting in self-defense. Yet it was Rittenhouse who lit the match by bringing an assault rifle with a bunch of thugs to a protest, and being allowed to stay there as an adjunct to law enforcement. But Rittenhouse had not committed a crime in doing so: Open carry with any type of legal gun is legal there. So, an assault rifle, marching down the street? The law says nothing.

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy. And the GOPrs who are celebrating this are declaring that brave people who confront who they believe is an active shooter are scum if they have the "wrong" politics.
Those people should not have been there at all. But suppose their motives were pure, and they all had guns legally, and they were all there with concealed carry. What did they lose? The ability to act like tough guys. The ability to intimidate. And the likelihood that the gun would create a scenario where everyone can be shot, and no one committed a crime.

Many people object to concealed carry. If a state has carry laws, I prefer concealed. Open carry is an invitation to reckless faux tough-guys who think intimidating the unarmed makes them masculine, the Rittenhouse shooting is a tragedy in a lot of different ways. But don't miss where the focus should be: On the laws that allowed this to happen. And never forgive GOPrs who spit on those who tried to stop who they believed was an active shooter, simply because these GOPrs don't like the politics of the victims. Laughing about the death of those who believed they were risking their lives for others is sociopathic."

There's a glaring problem, among the other glowing embers of problems, with this article. There were dozens of other open gun carriers branding their rifles milling in the crowd, even in the vicinity of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was the only one that was attacked. He used his gun to defend himself from Rosenbaum. If the only reason Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse was because he was openly carrying a rifle, how did he miss all the others whom he must have seen, and before he even saw Rittenhouse?

The author of your article is omitting other more important causal factors, which were pointed out in the trial, than the openly carried weapons.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There's a glaring problem, among the other glowing embers of problems, with this article. There were dozens of other open gun carriers branding their rifles milling in the crowd, even in the vicinity of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was the only one that was attacked.

But Rittenhouse didn't stay with the others, he branched out on his own approaching the crowd.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

But Rittenhouse didn't stay with the others, he branched out on his own approaching the crowd.

Eichenwald's article clearly and definitively stated: "it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Eichenwald's article clearly and definitively stated: "it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy."

it doesn’t matter to him. nor does it matter that theees all kinds of evidence that what started this mess, was the child rapist clearly instigating a conflict with rittenhouse.

anything that would exonerate rittenhouse, makes the left look like
liars. so he isn’t ever going to concede one inch. because the left said rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer, therefore that must be the case to him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Eichenwald's article clearly and definitively stated: "it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy."

Talk about cherry-picking

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it doesn’t matter to him. nor does it matter that theees all kinds of evidence that what started this mess, was the child rapist clearly instigating a conflict with rittenhouse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The guy had serious issues for sure, but when you walk into a situation that's out of control and you're the only person with an AR-15 style weapon ready to go I'd expect you're going to get some attention.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The guy had serious issues for sure, but when you walk into a situation that's out of control and you're the only person with an AR-15 style weapon ready to go I'd expect you're going to get some attention.

and maybe all of what you said, you. can direct at the rioters and people
who encourage riots. riots are a very bad idea spence, for reasons which are now clear.

why were the people rittenhouse shot, there to begin with? everyone on your side made a big deal ( incorrectly, as usual) about rittenhouse being where he didn’t belong. turns out his dad and other family lives there.

why were his victims there? were they cleaning up graffiti like rittenhouse started off doing? did you know that’s what he was doing at first? no weapon, cleaning up graffiti. you think your side ever mentions that?

do you actually believe the stuff you post? or are you just playing games?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and maybe all of what you said, you. can direct at the rioters and people
who encourage riots. riots are a very bad idea spence, for reasons which are now clear.

I've mentioned before, been tear gassed twice and I'm no instigator. Protests can organically get out of control before you know what's going on.

why were the people rittenhouse shot, there to begin with? everyone on your side made a big deal ( incorrectly, as usual) about rittenhouse being where he didn’t belong. turns out his dad and other family lives there.

I have no idea why Rosenbaum was there but the other two shot looked to just be taking part in the protests.

why were his victims there? were they cleaning up graffiti like rittenhouse started off doing? did you know that’s what he was doing at first? no weapon, cleaning up graffiti. you think your side ever mentions that?

That's been widely reported but really not material at all to the shootings.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Talk about cherry-picking

There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I stated that the open carry thing was "a glaring problem, among the other glowing embers of problems". I didn't want to take the time and effort to get into the other problems. I have done that with you many times in the past--critiquing your posts line by line. Didn't want to get into the various weeds here, but stick to his point. What you selected from the article here "There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle" is one of those glowing embers. There are more than two reasons. Eichenwald is making himself the arbiter of reasons in order to make his point sound more plausible.

Is Eichenwald saying that those dozens of others carrying so--called "assault" rifles was "to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people"? If so, why weren't they attacked? And if you're going to be in a situation in which several people are armed and openly carrying, "assault" rifles or other guns, wouldn't a reason to be carrying one yourself be to protect yourself, either by "intimidation" or force if necessary?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I stated that the open carry thing was "a glaring problem, among the other glowing embers of problems". I didn't want to take the time and effort to get into the other problems. I have done that with you many times in the past--critiquing your posts line by line. Didn't want to get into the various weeds here, but stick to his point. What you selected from the article here "There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle" is one of those glowing embers. There are more than two reasons. Eichenwald is making himself the arbiter of reasons in order to make his point sound more plausible.

Is Eichenwald saying that those dozens of others carrying so--called "assault" rifles was "to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people"? If so, why weren't they attacked? And if you're going to be in a situation in which several people are armed and openly carrying, "assault" rifles or other guns, wouldn't a reason to be carrying one yourself be to protect yourself, either by "intimidation" or force if necessary?

The same reason individual’s never stop groups of vigilantes
Of course carried to its logical end, your theory of everyone being armed is good, will get us to where?
The third world country you dream of America becoming?
Tribes fighting in the streets, if you want that take a trip to Africa
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The same reason individual’s never stop groups of vigilantes

Don't know to which question you're responding to. It's obvious to me that Rittenhouse was carrying his weapon (the only gun he owned or had access to) for self protection. If the only or real reason he was attacked is that he was openly carrying, that doesn't square with the dozens of others openly carrying not being attacked.

Of course carried to its logical end, your theory of everyone being armed is good, will get us to where?

It's not my theory. I don't own a gun. But the theory has merits. The theory that it would lead to the "wild West" doesn't consistently hold historical water. It might be more plausible that settlement into the West was made more possible by most being armed. The long arm of government law took a while to be efficiently and functionally established. And when it was, it was often corrupted and needed defense against it.

It also seems apparent to me, that when the government law allows dangerous things like riots to go fairly unimpeded, the citizens have to protect themselves or have their lives destroyed.

The third world country you dream of America becoming?

WTF? I've never had such a dream. Where do you get this bull$hit? Are you eating some funny mushrooms?

As for guns in the third world--none is as heavily armed as America. And many in that world wish that they had guns and lots of ammo because they are at the mercy of both the legal and illegal predators.

Tribes fighting in the streets, if you want that take a trip to Africa
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, Africa is a good example. Ask the unarmed Christians in North Africa.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, Africa is a good example. Ask the unarmed Christians in North Africa.

No, Rittenhouse was not carrying his weapon for self protection, he choose to put himself in that position, as a “medic” with a gun?
If the poor lad had gone there without a firearm, he would not be labeled as a killer, no one would have died.
He made a conscious choice, with the guidance of his mother, an adult I assume, to put himself into this situation.
Are you claiming that people no longer assume personal responsibility for their actions, if’s the other parties fault as long as it’s the other party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device