i have heard of this one. one boy with a firearm. that's not what i consider equal to burning down landmarks
and to the two other guys mentioned are part of the second amendment militia that believes in the right to bear arms
You asked for examples, I provided. You are already proving BLM right in trying to minimize the issue instead of acknowledging it which is exactly what they are speaking up about.
to be fair, your examples are not of "white supremacists", but of white people. It's 2020, do you even know the difference anymore? The media, and apparently you, have tried to paint Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist, but it's been acknowledged that there was and still is ZERO evidence of this. Not to mention, the video clearly shows him shooting only those who were attempting to kill him, while not firing a single shot toward the others who posed no threat to his safety. That's called self defense in this country. Haven't heard anyone defending the actions of the other guys, but there's more than a few defending the violent actions of Black Lives Matter and Antifa who also travel from out of state with deadly weapons to participate in their riots. Again, see the difference? Nevermind, you probably never will.
you can't consider one racist a cause for supporting BLM
@BlackAndBlueBalls Kyle Rittenhouse was outed by other people who he associated with as a white supremacist, I got no reason to suspect otherwise. Also is it not an American thing to try to stop a bad guy with a gun? If you are part of that protest then by all logical reason Kyle Rittenhouse, who is shooting people, is a "bad guy with a gun" and it is their 2nd amendment duty (according to you people) to stop Kyle Rittenhouse before more people are harmed. The people you are claiming are "attacking him" is the same people who you would applaud for attempting to stop a gunman any other day.
You can choose to believe whatever I guess. You always have loved your factual inaccuracies and highly inaccurate "anonymous sources". Kyle wasn't "shooting people". He was clearly walking away from the conflict when the mob attacked him. No matter what happened prior, they became the aggressors at that moment in the eyes of the law. And the 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to chase someone down and shoot them for any reason. Stop lying bro. No one is here for that. Keep your anti-2nd Amendment bs fear mongering to yourself please. Again, Kyle ONLY shot those who were attempting to kill him. Clearly seen from the footage, is him not firing a single shot at anyone else. Thanks. Have a great day.
@BlackAndBlueBalls I got very reasonable evidence that he is indeed a white supremacist and NO evidence that he is not. As far as I am concerned, unless you got some information I do not know then that is what the evidence we have access to points to. Also its not an anonymous source but Ryan Balch that claimed first hand knowledge about Kyle.Also was not the whole point of the 2nd amendment to have the right to protect yourself?
okay okay i get it. No proof at all. Just someone saying it. And, dude. Okay, sooo in the eyes of the law, you have the right to defend yourself until the threat is stopped. Kyle WAS NOT a threat to ANYONE when he was walking away from the mob. When the mob chose to attempt to kill him, they became the instigators/aggressors in the situation. You don't legally have a right (2nd Amendment or not) to chase down and attack someone after they are no longer a threat, regardless of what did or did not happen prior. Think like this. If someone punches you in the face, you can legally defend yourself from that person and fight back. But if they stop and start walking away, if you chase after them and jump on their back and start punching them, then you are now breaking the law and can be charged because it's no longer self defense.
@BlackAndBlueBalls Yes, eyewitness account is a form of evidence and he literally did kill people so he WAS a threat
If that were the case, then vigilante justice would be fully acceptable under the law. But as it is, it is not. We can't kill someone for killing someone in the past. He wasn't currently firing on anyone, so he wasn't a threat. I'm not going to argue with you about it; that is the law how it's written, whether or not you personally agree with it.
@BlackAndBlueBalls He was objectively a threat, he killed 2 people. You can argue if it was justifiable or not (I do not think it justified lethal violence personally even if he intended to defend himself) but the threat of him was there and was real which is evident by two cold bodies.What is worse is that he put himself in danger in the first place, he is the reason he had to "defend himself" and as such he is directly responsible for the death of those two. Had he not been a massive asshole he could have been home eating pancakes or something and everyone would have been happier for it.Furthermore if we put ourselves in the position of the protesters, what would you do if you saw a man with a rifle kill someone? Would you just assume that the man with the rifle who fired into a crowd had a good reason to defend themselves or would you assume that they are just another mass shooter? Trying to attack the gunman in this situation is not an irrational decision.
not sure this shows anything. nothing will be known because no one is talking.
It’s on camera, testimony isn’t required. They literally tried to lynch a man.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
it's like the left is goading them to come out to have a race war again. there is something seriously wrong with the left
i guess to the last black hate crime done by a white supremacist
again that's one person acting alone
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!