About Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys
So, 26 years Army service here. I see the photo of Rittenhouse down in the kneeling position aiming his weapon, and the St. Louis couple also aiming their weapons. She's waving her pistol around like 'look what I've got' and the husband is holding his automatic rifle under his arm aiming to the side, towards the people marching past.
Both are violating a key rule of handling a weapon safely - never aim your weapon unless you intend to shoot. If I understand correctly, that's one of the key issues in the McCloskey's being charged because it is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner. Likewise with Rittenhouse - witnesses reported seeing him repeatedly aiming toward protestors.
So, these were criminal acts. Of course, in crazy land, they were standing up to protect property yada yada. That might be fine - if you stay on the right side of the law. Unlike Rittenhouse, who shouldn't have been there at all, one could stand there with a weapon. But the line is crossed when you brandish it and especially when you point it at other people.
One more point - Especially about Rittenhouse. Back to that picture of him kneeling and aiming - it's totally the wrong position. He's completely jacked up. This especially points to how he's in fantasy land - he's just copying as best he can what he's seen in movies or whatever. It was completely wrong for him to be there in the first place, and with his head full of propaganda he was acting out his fantasy in a terrible display of stochastic terrorism - too bad it's a big word, it's an important concept. He was, with his weapon he shouldn't have had, in a place he shouldn't have been, a sad tool for an arsonist of a Resident.
Of course all this has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. 2nd Amendment rings kind of hollow with idiots like these waving their weapons around.
= new reply since forum marked as read
