Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[NavyShooter]

O.k. Weinie, it looks like popular demand is asking me to go first. My intent was to have you make an investment in a discussion before I did but that's o.k. with me this time if that doesn't happen.

I'll start by referring to my remarks to G2G where I stated that in my opinion it doesn't matter where a Canadian goes in the world his social priorities should always hold true. That doesn't mean that the Canadian can apply his social priorities to the situation but it does mean that any injustice, for example is still seem as just that.

So I take the photo of Rittenhouse marching down the street with his assault style weapon, along with another individual doing the same as totally unacceptable behaviour in Canada. Therefore, I apply that fact to the origiginal question.

(more to come when I have the time- other business calls)

Donald,

Please define an 'assault style weapon'?


Please show a video of him 'marching down the street'?


The videos I have seen show KH walking or running, in some cases, towards the danger in order to help (putting out a fire in a dumpster, and to help with first aid) and in other cases away from danger (after shots were fired and he moved towards the police)


I have not seen him 'marching'.


NS

 

[Donald H]

So in a nutshell you think we are perfect, and anyone that varies from "Canadian" is doing an injustice?

Oh no! Far from perfect but I think it's fair to say that we are morally superior to the behaviour depicted in that picture! Would you not agree? Is that behaviour that we could ever accept as suitable for Canada? I'm suggesting it's not and it never will be. And as I said already, not even with a model 94!

We Canadians are behooved to stay within the limits of acceptable behaviour on gun rights and gun control, and if we don't then the opposite of what we wish to be acceptable with guns will take over. For example, anyone who sees this kind of behaviour and doesn't condemn it for Canada, puts a bone in the teeth of the soccer moms. (assumed most get the analogy)

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Oh no! Far from perfect but I think it's fair to say that we are morally superior to the behaviour depicted in that picture! Would you not agree? Is that behaviour that we could ever accept as suitable for Canada? I'm suggesting it's not and it never will be. And as I said already, not even with a model 94!

I had to search back several pages to try to figure out what "the photo" is that you're talking about. Just to be clear, I believe this is the photo you are referencing, so can you confirm:

We Canadians are behooved to stay within the limits of acceptable behaviour on gun rights and gun control, and if we don't then the opposite of what we wish to be acceptable with guns will take over. For example, anyone who sees this kind of behaviour and doesn't condemn it for Canada, puts a bone in the teeth of the soccer moms. (assumed most get the analogy)

What are the "limits of acceptable behaviour" and who defines what is "acceptable"? It seems that you suggest that "soccer moms" define the limits of morality that you feel we should operate within? Again, wanting to be clear on what you're saying before I respond substantively.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>puts a bone in the teeth of the soccer moms.

Can't say I have any respect for people who outsource their thinking to soccer moms.

 

[Donald H]

Donald,

Please define an 'assault style weapon'?


Please show a video of him 'marching down the street'?


The videos I have seen show KH walking or running, in some cases, towards the danger in order to help (putting out a fire in a dumpster, and to help with first aid) and in other cases away from danger (after shots were fired and he moved towards the police)


I have not seen him 'marching'.


NS

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-gun-advocates-changing-definition-of-assault-rifles-is-meant-to-sow/#:~:text=Gary%20Mauser%2C%20a%20prominent%20gun,civilian%20possession%20of%20automatic%20guns

The above is the rapidly changing link. I tried to quote the Conservative's changing of what they perceived to be the distinction and just say, 'yeah that', but the piece I wanted to quote just disappears. Anyway the accepted definition used by the military doesn't apply to my term becaus automatic weapons were already banned in Canada.

My definition of an 'assault STYLE weapon would be one that is black or pink and fits the military definition in all instances except the capability to be switched between auto and semi-auto. The FNC1 would fit for me.

I have no video of him marching down the street. I only have th still photo that's been posted. And the 'marching' bit is my word I chose to replace 'walking', which was more applicable than 'walking' in my opinion. Maybe also 'strutting', ambling, trotting, sachetting?

 

[Donald H]

I had to search back several pages to try to figure out what "the photo" is that you're talking about. Just to be clear, I believe this is the photo you are referencing, so can you confirm:

Yeah that's the photo.

What are the "limits of acceptable behaviour" and who defines what is "acceptable"? It seems that you suggest that "soccer moms" define the limits of morality that you feel we should operate within? Again, wanting to be clear on what you're saying before I respond substantively.

I don't have the credentials to define that which is acceptable behaviour. Please refer to Canadian lawl

And as to the question on 'morality', I have my own standards I try to live with but the best answer to your question would be that which others on this forum would define as morally acceptable as opposed to that which is legal.

Nobody has answered my question yet on whether or not they would consider what Kyle and his fellow (whatever group he represents?) are doing as being socially responsible for Canadians in our country.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

My definition of an 'assault STYLE weapon would be one that is black or pink and fits the military definition in all instances except the capability to be switched between auto and semi-auto. The FNC1 would fit for me.

So if it's black and made of polymer (versus a wood stock) it's bad and "has no place in civilized society" because it's an "assault style weapon"?

But a Lee-Enfield would be good to go since it has wood furniture, despite having actually been used in a war?

So it's the aesthetics you object to?

I have no video of him marching down the street. I only have th still photo that's been posted. And the 'marching' bit is my word I chose to replace 'walking', which was more applicable than 'walking' in my opinion. Maybe also 'strutting', ambling, trotting, sachetting?

Now that you've confirmed the pic, it's a photograph of him walking. It's a still. He's clearly walking. So the use of "marching" seems to be mere editorializing to give a more sinister aspect to him walking.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Donald H]

Nobody has answered my question yet on whether or not they would consider what Kyle and his fellow (whatever group he represents?) are doing as being socially responsible for Canadians in our country.
[/quote]

Sure. 100%.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Yeah that's the photo.

So, a guy walking down the street with an AR-15 is immoral then?

I'd be interested to know what is immoral about that.

To me, it's a photo of a young man with at least a modicum of knowledge on how to use the rifle he's equipped with, since he's exercising proper trigger discipline and pointing his rifle in a safe direction as he's walking. The context of the photo is that he and other concerned citizens turned out at the request of local business proprietors to help prevent their hard-built businesses from getting burnt to the ground as had happened in previous days. If there's anything immoral here according my my morality versus that of yours, it's that the heavily armed and highly funded police didn't do their job and let rioters run amok. In circumstances like that the options are to just let your life's work get torched, or try to defend yourselves. Personally I am okay with citizens defending themselves against enraged mobs who are destroying their city when the state either refuses or fails to stop that mob.

My morality includes that it is permissible to defend one's self, defend others, and defend others' property. I see no inherent immorality to carrying a weapon. How one uses that weapon is where the morality comes into play.

I don't have the credentials to define that which is acceptable behaviour. Please refer to Canadian lawl

Canadian law does not define morality, it simply defines what is legal.

If you think that Canadian laws are good concerning firearms that's a totally different topic than one arguing that Canadians are morally superior to Americans because you would not see the photo in question in Canada.

Except that we have seen scenes like that. Take, for example, the Oka Crisis. What are your thoughts on a photo like this:

Granted, that was a different time ... I'd have to check the laws, but it may have even been fully legal for those First Nations folk to be armed like that. Maybe it still is, I am not an expert in how the law impacts First Nations people differently.

And as to the question on 'morality', I have my own standards I try to live with but the best answer to your question would be that which others on this forum would define as morally acceptable as opposed to that which is legal.

Nobody has answered my question yet on whether or not they would consider what Kyle and his fellow (whatever group he represents?) are doing as being socially responsible for Canadians in our country.

In Canada under our current laws, what they were doing would most likely be illegal. Granted, defence of property and defence of persons can be a defence to any charge under the criminal code, but that would be a tough road to hoe. In Canada, AR-15s are illegal now so you wouldn't be able to get an ATT even IF an ATT could be issued to go defend some businesses so ... most likely it would be illegal. It would get a bit more grey if they went out to defend people with something like a Bushmaster ACR (which is legal, non-restricted but looks an awful lot like an AR-15), but we do not have open carry laws in Canada so you'd be relying on ss. 34 and 35 of the Code.

So, from that perspective, that it's illegal, one could say it's "not socially responsible".

Taken from another perspective, if law and order had broken down in a Canadian city to the point that buildings and small businesses were being burnt to the ground, and there were people roaming around armed (like the "street medic" I pictured, or the guy who shot first at Mr. Rittenhouse) with impunity ... it might be the socially responsible thing to defend your community. I would not recommend it for the legal implications though, but purely from a moral perspective, I think it would be wholly moral to defend one's community.

I fully recognize that many Canadians would disagree with that. I simply don't agree with the prevailing opinion and would rather if Canadian society had laws and mores closer to those of the United States.

With all due respect to "soccer moms" their views are neither persuasive nor authoritative to me.

 

[Donald H]

So if it's black and made of polymer (versus a wood stock) it's bad and "has no place in civilized society" because it's an "assault style weapon"?

But a Lee-Enfield would be good to go since it has wood furniture, despite having actually been used in a war?

So it's the aesthetics you object to?

No, it's more than the aesthetics. I'll try to explain further. I used to hunt for deer and other large animals and I started out with an old Lee Enfield. It worked fine but was rather limited in accuracy due to it bien shot out, as many of them were. Then I changed to some other sporting rifle that suited the sport. I think it was a model 94. Then later to rifles more suited to longer range shooting and also having some versatility to be suited to a wider range of game animals. Never once would I have considered an FNC1 for the task at hand for several reasons. Maybe not my first consideration but definitely one of my main ones would have been peer pressure amongst my hunting buddies on that being a poor choice. Heavy, gas operated, not suitable for a scope, cumbersome, and probably not available at that time anyway.

Now that you've confirmed the pic, it's a photograph of him walking. It's a still. He's clearly walking. So the use of "marching" seems to be mere editorializing to give a more sinister aspect to him walking.

There's nothing sinister about marching and so I like it and I'm sticking with it. To me it means walking with an intent on his mind. And I've already provided my perception of what he was 'intent' on doing. I think that chances are that our mounties would see it more my way too, as opposed to the alternative explanation.

Did young Kyle have any kind of a record that indicated he should be watched by the police?

You have a good day now!

 

[Good2Golf]

Oh no! Far from perfect but I think it's fair to say that we are morally superior to the behaviour depicted in that picture! Would you not agree? Is that behaviour that we could ever accept as suitable for Canada? I'm suggesting it's not and it never will be. And as I said already, not even with a model 94!

You mean the part where a peaceful protest was subverted by convicted felons and misdemeanours and used anarchistic methods and inflammatory racist language against those committed to protecting private property, thereby destabilizing the peaceful protests?  Or perhaps you missed the part where Rosenbaum was inciting the defenders with racial slurs including n*****, etc. and taunting them to shoot him.  So that is peaceful and something you’d be happy to see happen in Canada?

Regards
G2G

 

[Good2Golf]

...Nobody has answered my question yet on whether or not they would consider what Kyle and his fellow (whatever group he represents?) are doing as being socially responsible for Canadians in our country.

If Canadian firearms regulations allowed open carry, then absolutely yes, fully acceptable in Canada.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nobody has answered my question yet on whether or not they would consider what Kyle and his fellow (whatever group he represents?) are doing as being socially responsible for Canadians in our country.

I 100% have no issue with Kyle in this.  I know not what group he is part of and cannot speak to that.

No, it's more than the aesthetics. I'll try to explain further. I used to hunt for deer and other large animals and I started out with an old Lee Enfield. It worked fine but was rather limited in accuracy due to it bien shot out, as many of them were. Then I changed to some other sporting rifle that suited the sport. I think it was a model 94. Then later to rifles more suited to longer range shooting and also having some versatility to be suited to a wider range of game animals. Never once would I have considered an FNC1 for the task at hand for several reasons. Maybe not my first consideration but definitely one of my main ones would have been peer pressure amongst my hunting buddies on that being a poor choice. Heavy, gas operated, not suitable for a scope, cumbersome, and probably not available at that time anyway.

A No.4 LE weighs about the same as an FNC1 (Non sporterized), you can fit a scope to an FNC1, not sure what your issue is with gas operating rifles, cumbersome well that's a personal feeling I cant argue with that . 

I hunted Whitetail with an M14 up until this year, thank you Mr. PM, she is/was an excellent heavy, gas operated, semi-auto, .308. 

 

[Eaglelord17]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-gun-advocates-changing-definition-of-assault-rifles-is-meant-to-sow/#:~:text=Gary%20Mauser%2C%20a%20prominent%20gun,civilian%20possession%20of%20automatic%20guns

The above is the rapidly changing link. I tried to quote the Conservative's changing of what they perceived to be the distinction and just say, 'yeah that', but the piece I wanted to quote just disappears. Anyway the accepted definition used by the military doesn't apply to my term becaus automatic weapons were already banned in Canada.

My definition of an 'assault STYLE weapon would be one that is black or pink and fits the military definition in all instances except the capability to be switched between auto and semi-auto. The FNC1 would fit for me.

Poor logic by the writer. Just because some people incorrectly advertised things 40 years ago because they were trying to make money doesn't mean that is how the term is used or its being used correctly. I have seen many gun stores advertise magazines by calling them 'clips'. The vast majority of rifles do not take 'clips' they take magazines. Just because they called a magazine a 'clip' doesn't make them clips, just as a clip (such as a mannlicher clip or a M1 Garands Enbloc) isn't a magazine. If anything gun owners are much better for terminology today as there is clear political implications and it is much easier to learn proper definitions today thanks to the internet than it was 40 years ago. If anything the people trying to ban firearms are attempting to muddy the water by creating new undefined definitions in a attempt to scare people.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Looking at the comments on FB in relation to MSM articles on this, it's scary how quick people would condemn Kyle and confiscate his parents property. Their grasp of legal process and how firearms work is tenuous at best. My guess is BLM/Antifa supporters are trying to milk this for all it's worth, because they are likely to be on the wrong side of any court case. I suspect a self-defense ruling will make their civil case hard to justify, particularly with the track records of the people shot, Plus as I mentioned, the same civil suit tactic can be used against BLM/Antifa and the cities who failed to prevent riots. 

 

[Donald H]

I 100% have no issue with Kyle in this.  I know not what group he is part of and cannot speak to that.

A No.4 LE weighs about the same as an FNC1 (Non sporterized), you can fit a scope to an FNC1, not sure what your issue is with gas operating rifles, cumbersome well that's a personal feeling I cant argue with that . 

I hunted Whitetail with an M14 up until this year, thank you Mr. PM, she is/was an excellent heavy, gas operated, semi-auto, .308.

Sorry for the delay in answering you.  I have nothing against gas operated rifles other than my personal preference. Or shotguns. I owned two gas operated shotguns. My preference was for conventional bolt actin hunting rifles for aesthetic reasons, as well as some other reasons. When I was hunting there were few gas operated rifles seen either on the range or in the woods. I think they may not have been available, except for a Browning that was pretty ugly looking. A friend had one and I'm not even sure it was gas operated? Maybe some of the people on this forum will remember that rifle?

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-verdict-rittenhouse-1.6253598

Verdict is in.

Given the facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction, not a surprising one.

Ultimately it came down to being an analysis of a claim of self defense. No matter how screwed up and wrong the context and situation leading up to it were, when a case turns on whether a particular use of force was legally defensible, most of that bigger context and circumstances stop mattering. It turns on the immediate events leading up to the use of force, and what was reasonably perceived and believed by the person using it.

The only uncertainty I had was about the first shooting. Shooting to stop the guy trying to brain him with the skateboard and the guy pointing the Glock at him were no brainers so long as the first shooting was legally defensible.

Rittenhouse is an idiot, and his life is going to suck tremendously - he’ll probably still get sued for every cent he’ll ever own - but foolish and dangerous choices are not necessarily criminally culpable.

 

[Remius]

Given the facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction, not a surprising one.

Ultimately it came down to being an analysis of a claim of self defense. No matter how screwed up and wrong the context and situation leading up to it were, when a case turns on whether a particular use of force was legally defensible, most of that bigger context and circumstances stop mattering. It turns on the immediate events leading up to the use of force, and what was reasonably perceived and believed by the person using it.

The only uncertainty I had was about the first shooting. Shooting to stop the guy trying to brain him with the skateboard and the guy pointing the Glock at him were no brainers so long as the first shooting was legally defensible.

Rittenhouse is an idiot, and his life is going to suck tremendously - he’ll probably still get sued for every cent he’ll ever own - but foolish and dangerous choices are not necessarily criminally culpable.

He might also become a celebrity on the right, speaking engagements, write a book etc etc.

 

[Booter]

Re: the appeal. There has to be grounds- not just the judge is whacky. (Which he was)

I would suspect here someone would have to find something wrong with the instructions given to the jury. If they were reasonable it’s kinda dead where it is

 

[brihard]

Re: the appeal. There has to be grounds- not just the judge is whacky. (Which he was)

I would suspect here someone would have to find something wrong with the instructions given to the jury. If they were reasonable it’s kinda dead where it is

Hard to appeal a jury acquittal, yeah, unless you can challenge jury instructions or something like that.

He might also become a celebrity on the right, iPad speaking engagements, write a book etc etc.

Yes, for a bit. Short half-life on that kind of celebrity though, and the pundits and grifters likely won’t be able to profit off his story and his name for long.