Dems love the 2nd Amendment now!

I am glad they finally see the value of arming yourself.

Too bad they mistake the enforcement of immigration laws as tyranny and are willing to die to protect some criminals

quote:

---

I am glad they finally see the value of arming yourself.

---

POTUS Trump playing 5D chess once again!!

It is pretty comical to watch the “Lol your guns are no match for the government” crowd suddenly shift gears.

Most are pro more reasonable gun control. There already are some controls on guns. Do republicants have problems with those controls?

But replicants hate the 2nd amendment now?

What’s great is you have Dem sites on social media saying the right is suddenly against guns now that the left has them. I haven’t seen that said anywhere other than left leaning sites. They act like we give 2 shits.

quote:

---

Just like when the populists on the left justified arresting Kye Rittenhouse on the theory that, "He went looking for trouble and he found it, so it was his fault," and now the populists on the right are using the same justification.

But that's populism, folks.

---

There’s a very important difference in these two situations. If you use your critical thinking skills, you might recognize it.

Minnesota law states:

minn.gov

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

609.725 Vagrancy.


Any of the following are vagrants and are guilty of a
misdemeanor:


(1) A person, with ability to work, who is without lawful
means of support, does not seek employment, and is not under 18
years of age; or


(2) A person found in or loitering near any structure,
vehicle, or private grounds who is there without the consent of
the owner and is unable to account for being there; or

(3) A prostitute who loiters on the streets or in a public
place or in a place open to the public with intent to solicit
for immoral purposes; or

(4) A person who derives support in whole or in part from
begging or as a fortune teller or similar impostor.

quote:

---

There’s a very important difference in these two situations. If you use your critical thinking skills, you might recognize it.

---

LOL.

The only difference in the reasoning of the populists is that the first guy was on my team and the second guy is on their team.

That's your "very important difference," despite what you say.

One was "officer safety" and one was "self-defense." Neither of those change the reasoning. If Rittenhouse hadn't gone "looking for trouble," he would never have had to defend himself. If this guy "hadn't gone looking for trouble," he never would have been in a position to be shot 10 times in five seconds despite the fact that he didn't threaten anybody with his gun and in fact it appears that he was shot after the gun had been removed.

That's the reasoning. Each person unwisely inserted themselves into chaotic and dangerous sistuations and both did so armed.