GooseFinger

Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.

I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.

What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.

This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.

~~And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.~~

Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn't state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here's an NPR article that goes into more detail.

Most Americans, myself included, don't like giving up personal rights for "security."

To draw a parallel that I figure you'll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don't think the "solution" to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say "well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It's that easy!"

The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn't that free speech exists, it's unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn't happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.

Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they've changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would've been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.

Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This "solution" does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying "Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It's that simple!"

You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"

Me: I'd rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn't breed people that murder children because they're so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.

But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they'll instead say that AR15s are what's murdering babies and if you don't support banning them, then you're pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.

And a face full of 00 buckshot is a pretty good tool to get the job done 🤷‍♂️

Practically all gun deaths are from suicides and organized crime.

It's amazing that people believe the DNC when they say that 10 round mag limits and pistol grip bans are the answer, when they could just shift gears and give us what everyone wants. Single payer healthcare, better schools and cheaper/free college, higher pay so people don't resort to crime to make ends meet...

But those problems are harder to solve, so let's wipe our ass with the Bill of Rights instead and convince people to cheer us on while we do it.

Just depends on the setting.

Small kids at home? Yeah that's dumb AF.

Living alone? Who cares where it is, but concealing/securing it would help prevent it from being stolen if your house is broken into.

Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it's entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.

I'm aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.

So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don't have a license, these people really shouldn't worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.

Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn't justified, so I'm still not sure how this helps anyone.

The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.

Depending on which modern definition of "militia" you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn't one.

But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn't grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It'd be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That's a natural right.

Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying "the government may not infringe on the People's right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces." Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.

Not to mention the "solution" people commonly throw around that Americans should skip out on college altogether since student loan interest and tuition is so absurdly high. "Just go to trade school!"

Sure, let's see how well our country fairs in 20 years when we have an extreme shortage of doctors, engineers, researchers, lawyers, teachers, architects, nurses, chemists, pilots, psychologists, economists, social workers, etc.

The people who benefit from the unsastainably high tuition rates we have today will be dead by the time these consequences realize. We shouldn't sacrifice our way of life so a few greedy inhumans can gorge themselves on more money than they could ever spend.

Civil disobedience by not paying these loans back is far from enough. I say we make heads roll.

GEDs are high school equivalency credentials. GED test scores are treated the same as high school credits by practically all institutions.

I'm not sure why this bill would exclude GED holders since there's no practical reason to, so I'd assume they are included until we know for sure.

The tiny subset of people who dropped from high school, never got their GED, and want to take community college seriously could just... get their GED first? Compared to the time and cost of completing a 2 year degree, obtaining a GED is very small barrier to entry.

You're not articulating very well what your issue is.

Ahhh yes, but you see, on page 176 §12.4.11 of the EULA it clearly states that by using our products you've given us your consent to rip you off.