The lesson is that it's fine to bring an assault rifle to demonstrations, so the BLM movement should take notice and come armed to the teeth when protesting.
You really think that was a 'demonstration'? Do demonstrations in your country usually include firebombs, looting, other methods of arson and destruction of private/public property? Here, we call that a 'riot', not a protest or demonstration.
OK, now you're trying to incite violence. If "BLM shows up armed to the teeth", it's gonna be SHTF time.
Who said it was OK to show up with a rifle? Trust me, your belief that all of the GOP/Republicans/anyone else thinks this is OK is wrong. Far too many do, but they're wrong, too. The people in the streets weren't standing up to the government in an armed conflict, they were protesting the shooting of someone who wasn't supposed to be where the incident occurred, took his ex's keys and was going to leave with her vehicle and her kids were still inside of the van. He resisted the police and he has admitted that he went back to the vehicle to get his knife, which would have likely made it a deadly shooting, rather than his being wounded. But everyone knows he didn't do anything wrong, right? He should have complied, same as so many others who fought with the police, shot at, drove aggressively toward or ran/drove away from. His criminal record isn't so extensive that it would have resulted in much more than being charged with violating a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order).
To be fair, the cop is an idiot and not too long after, he left his service weapon in the glove box of his girlfriend's car, and it was stolen. That's a good example of an irresponsible cop and he should have been suspended, at the very least.
I'm still amazed and pissed off that the weapons charge was dropped. From the link, "Wisconsin state law clearly states that lawful gun owners can “generally open carry without a permit” as long as the person wielding the “dangerous weapon” is 18 or older. However, Rittenhouse’s defense attorney is arguing that his client was protected under a different
“vague state law” that allows younger children to
carry rifles for hunting. "
He wasn't hunting, so he was carrying illegally, yet the defense was able to get the charges dropped. That's inconceivable. The article further shows "Some advocates have argued that Rittenhouse relinquished his right to self-defense by committing the crime of having carried a firearm while being under the age of 18."
I agree with that argument. A minor can carry this kind of gun if they're hunting, but not in the streets and there was absolutely no reason for him to go in the first place, never mind his saying that he was asked to protect a business. Why the F would anyone ask a 17 year old idiot to protect their business? Even if I owned a business, there's no way I would have my 17 year old kid go there for ANY reason, especially armed.
During the homicide trial against Kyle Rittenhouse, now 18, lawyers repeatedly turn to the facts surrounding his underaged open-carry of the semi-automatic rifle that he used to kill two men and wound a third in Kenosha last summer.
thecrimereport.org
