Bari, the law regarding self-defense exists for valid reasons, and to suggest that anyone who can legally open-carry a rifle or shotgun for self-defense (so-called 'long-barrel' weapon) is not eligible to use, or should not use said weapon for self-defense is a reverse tautology. It makes no sense.
Bari, the law regarding self-defense exists for valid reasons, and to suggest that anyone who can legally open-carry a rifle or shotgun for self-defense (so-called 'long-barrel' weapon) is not eligible to use, or should not use said weapon for self-defense is a reverse tautology. It makes no sense.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the same age my Dad was when he enlisted in 1944 and was sent overseas to fight and possibly die. 17 is not a 'child' by any means. Young, yes. But with training, discipline, keen observational skill and decision-capacity under stress, I'd say Kyle Rittenhouse did a damned-near perfect job of self-defense that August evening. His trigger discipline was outstanding. The only people he shot at were in the process of causing him great bodily harm and/or reaching for his gun to do what, exactly?
The people Kyle shot at are scum, but that's beside the point. Intellectuals look down their noses at working-class heroes like police, Army recruits, plumbers, electricians, guys who hang gutters on houses, and those who drive 'them old trucks' (to paraphrase Willie Nelson). Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys... well, for my druthers, I'd rather have many more 'cowboys' that fewer snide, ignorant MSNBC talking heads. And, we're all safer when more trained citizens are 'carrying'.
Indeed. I would go a step farther and say that the right of self-defense incorporates the right to means of self-defense superior or at least equal to any likely attack. It might not be fair to shoot an assailant armed with a knife. It’s a lot safer than trying to stab the guy, though…
Bari, the law regarding self-defense exists for valid reasons, and to suggest that anyone who can legally open-carry a rifle or shotgun for self-defense (so-called 'long-barrel' weapon) is not eligible to use, or should not use said weapon for self-defense is a reverse tautology. It makes no sense.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the same age my Dad was when he enlisted in 1944 and was sent overseas to fight and possibly die. 17 is not a 'child' by any means. Young, yes. But with training, discipline, keen observational skill and decision-capacity under stress, I'd say Kyle Rittenhouse did a damned-near perfect job of self-defense that August evening. His trigger discipline was outstanding. The only people he shot at were in the process of causing him great bodily harm and/or reaching for his gun to do what, exactly?
The people Kyle shot at are scum, but that's beside the point. Intellectuals look down their noses at working-class heroes like police, Army recruits, plumbers, electricians, guys who hang gutters on houses, and those who drive 'them old trucks' (to paraphrase Willie Nelson). Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys... well, for my druthers, I'd rather have many more 'cowboys' that fewer snide, ignorant MSNBC talking heads. And, we're all safer when more trained citizens are 'carrying'.
Indeed. I would go a step farther and say that the right of self-defense incorporates the right to means of self-defense superior or at least equal to any likely attack. It might not be fair to shoot an assailant armed with a knife. It’s a lot safer than trying to stab the guy, though…