The firearm thread

[R650R]

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system. Only a halfwit would deny that such discrimination exists.

The Republicans have made it some kind of a bogey man, they always need bogey men to keep their easily (mis)led base riled up. Basically none of them have a clue what CRT entails. Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

It is very unlikely that any Republican politician ever studied CRT, so neither they nor their witless sycophants are qualified to comment.

What racial discrimination can you PROVE exists in the legal system. As far as I know the legal system runs on PROVABLE evidence submitted to a judge or group of defendants peers to decide if a PERSON of ANY race is guilty beoyond REASINABLE DOUBT of the allegation.

In NZ we have a reverse racial system where Jim bob gets a DISCOUNT on his sentence of murder/rape/assault/theiving cause he had a rough upbringing living in a caravan getting beaten by
drunk unemployed substitute father.

Like any modern pop culture term words or acronyms for those on per letter typed internet data plans, things often take on the identity of a subset or group of similar ideas. So while for you Critical Race Theiry is some specific high level university course for others it encompasses all the ideals that those infected with the concept spread into other academic institutions.

[TheDemonLord]

Acquitted on all counts.


Now, I can't wait for him to sue the ever-loving shit out of all the lying Media Weasels.

[TheDemonLord]

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system.

No, it doesn't.

It follows on from the works of one Antonio Gramsci, which if I had to summerize could be summed up as:

"Common sense exists to maintain the status Quo and therefore the existing power structures"

Said Power Structures were found to be a roadblock to ushering in the Glorious revolution and Utopia. Gramsci also theorized that a direct attack on them would merely galvanize support for them, so instead he outlined what he called 'A War of Position' - by which these power structures and institutions are undermined to the point where they collapse.

It is from this basis that Kimberly Crenshaw drew on with her theory of Intersectionality and her work in CRT - both of which are Academic traditions founded on Marxists principles and on the idea that by removing the existing roadblocks to Revolution, they will be able to create the perfect, Communist society.

Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

Okay then Pritch - that's a Serious accusation, so I'll respond in kind:

Name your level of proof that you would require to prove that CRT is just another set of Marxist BS. I'm more than happy to Oblige.

To start with: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/c.php?g=1066991&p=7764347

"Critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt. It also draws from certain European philosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, as well as from the American radical tradition exemplified by such figures as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Du Bois, César Chávez, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Power and Chicano movements of the sixties and early seventies."

So let's see:

Radical Feminism (Marxism)
Gramsci (Communist)
Foucaulat and Derrida (PostModernists, aka Neo-Marxists)
W. E. B. Du Bois (Socialist)
César Chávez (Union leader and Socialist)

Do you see a pattern?

[TheDemonLord]

As the trial progressed the thought occurred that the little shit will likely do it again if he's acquitted.

Good. The world could do with less Pedos and Wife Beaters.

Now we await the outcome of the Achmaud Arbery killers' trial. Hopefully a more sane outcome but likely not.

I've only taken a cursory glance at that Case, but my first thought is that the accused should be found guilty of Murder.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting, I thought from TDL's posts it was being taught right down to young child levels.

Is the full Marxist theory being taught at primary school? No.

Are the effects of CRT being taught at primary school? Yes.

Now, I'll give you 3 different proofs of this happening. One from a pure Logic point of View, One from an empirical point of view and one from an objective point of view.

Logical first:

If you google "CRT in schools" - you'll find umpteen articles proudly declaring that it is not being taught in schools AND numerous articles about Teachers being deeply opposed to the Ban.

If it is not being Taught, then there is no reason to complain about it being banned.
There is only a reason to complain about the Ban if it is being taught, since there are complaints about it being banned - we can conclude from a pure logic perspective, that CRT is being taught in schools.

Empirical:

CRT is very much way of viewing the world, It is taught to Teachers (who are predominantly Left-Leaning), who believe in the axioms of the theory. Those same Teachers, when teaching a subject from which CRT has a particular view, will be teaching it from that viewpoint.

Objective:

https://www.buffaloschools.org/cms/l...structions.pdf

Now, I'll grant you, it doesn't explicitly say in that Curriculum that it references CRT - however there are enough concepts:

- systemic oppression and racism
- BLM
- equity and anti-racism
- edify Black and Brown voices in daily instruction

And so when Pritch (and the Media) say that 'It's not being taught in Schools', it's a bait-and-switch. Yes, the University subject isn't being taught, but the world view that is put forward by CRT is being used.

Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges.
Guess we can expect throngs of AR15 carrying medics popping off rioting Revolutionary Communists, Pedophiles and Wife Beaters - now this interesting precedent has been set.

The Precedent was always been there and today is a good day, I've also fixed it for you.

And I hope you're right - the next time Antifa and BLM rioters want to go cause havoc and mayhem and the Democrat politicians tell the Cops to stand down, they'll face a bunch of Kyle's armed to the teeth - then maybe they'll think twice about rioting and burning cities down.

[pete376403]

And I hope you're right - the next time Antifa and BLM rioters want to go cause havoc and mayhem and the Democrat politicians tell the Cops to stand down, they'll face a bunch of Kyle's armed to the teeth - then maybe they'll think twice about rioting and burning cities down.

Maybe the antifa and BLMs will take their own weapons and we can have a free for all. Both sides claiming they are only there to administer medical assistance.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe the antifa and BLMs will take their own weapons and we can have a free for all. Both sides claiming they are only there to administer medical assistance.

Well, they did that already....

And lost.

Turns out the group that Loves 'Murica, Loves Guns and Loves the 2nd Amendment are quicker on the draw and better shots.

Who'd have thought that....

[pritch]

Rittenhouse's bail was apparently set at $2,000,000. The money was raised by donations from RWNJs. (A fool and his money...) One of the two solicitors responsible for raising the money has now received the 2 million back. The other lawyer, Lin Wood, wants a share because he helped raise it. He himself is likely facing major legal expenses as a result of his activities post the 2020 election. Rittenhouse though wants all the money. He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.

[TheDemonLord]

Rittenhouse's bail was apparently set at $2,000,000. The money was raised by donations from RWNJs. (A fool and his money...) One of the two solicitors responsible for raising the money has now received the 2 million back. The other lawyer, Lin Wood, wants a share because he helped raise it. He himself is likely facing major legal expenses as a result of his activities post the 2020 election. Rittenhouse though wants all the money. He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.

I'm more hoping that he uses the money to sue the piss out of every lying Media outlet and Joe Biden.

As for the Civil actions of the Families - yeah, good luck with that - he could possibly counter-sue for being attacked and having to use lethal force to defend himself (which would be glorious to see)

[husaberg]

He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.

that a very good point as OJ found out.
the fact he had a gun that was illegal for him to own,
The 17-year-old said he brought an AR-15-style assault rifle "to protect myself". A friend had purchased it because he was too young to legally buy a gun.

He was in a place he legally wasn't allowed to be,

decided to drive 30 minutes from his home in the state of Illinois, to go out in Kenosha on the night of August 25, 2020.

At some point, Rittenhouse left the dealership, was prevented by police from returning

According to Rittenhouse, he drove to Kenosha on August 24 to stay with his friend Dominick Black, who kept a rifle he purchased for Rittenhouse four months earlier at his Kenosha home

Mr Rittenhouse has come to the streets of Kenosha on the third night of Black Lives Matter protests

Some 250 National Guard members were deployed to the city.

out past a time he was allowed to be at, at a place no one asked him to be.
Go Merica

[sugilite:Me]

Well, they did that already....

And lost.

Turns out the group that Loves 'Murica, Loves Guns and Loves the 2nd Amendment are quicker on the draw and better shots.

Who'd have thought that....

Well that explains it - that is how Rambo got across the top of the waterfall with about a 100 commies attempting to shooting at him with fully automatic weapons

[TheDemonLord]

the fact he had a gun that was illegal for him to own

Did you miss that part in the Trial?

Oh well, I'll enlighten you - see, it wasn't illegal for him to own, because the Law in Wisconsin has a specific exception:

"when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun".

Turns out that the DA knew this, tried to press charges (presumably knowing the law AND knowing the exception to it) and when it came to it, the Judge asked if the prosecution had measured the Barrel length (this is what deems a Rifle or a Shotgun under a certain length to be a 'Dangerous Weapon'), they did not, and the Judge rightfully threw that charge out.

Now, if it had been an SBR or a Sawn-off Shotgun, you would be right, but since it wasn't, you aren't.

He was in a place he legally wasn't allowed to be

Again, false - his Family lives in Kenosha, he had as much right to be there as anyone else.

out past a time he was allowed to be at

Except the curfew wasn't applicable

at a place no one asked him to be.

That's the beauty of a Free country, you don't have to ask people permission to move freely.

Go Merica

Absolutely.

Here's a reminder that the Jury acquitted on all charges

[pritch]

"when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun".

Turns out that the DA knew this, tried to press charges (presumably knowing the law AND knowing the exception to it) and when it came to it, the Judge asked if the prosecution had measured the Barrel length (this is what deems a Rifle or a Shotgun under a certain length to be a 'Dangerous Weapon'), they did not, and the Judge rightfully threw that charge out.

Now, if it had been an SBR* or a Sawn-off Shotgun, you would be right, but since it wasn't, you aren't.

Except that law applies specifically to hunting for which he would have needed to carry a licence. Anyhoo there's no point in us arguing about it the Yanks are big on litigation, they'll likely have at it with a will.

The families are apparently taking action against the police and the bun fight over the 2 million dollars bail money is kicking off.
Lots of water to go under the bridge yet. Other judges might not be as sympathetic as Schroeder.


* In English an "SBR" is called a carbine. From the way back mental stack, if the barrel length is less than 90 times the bore it's a carbine.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that law applies specifically to hunting for which he would have needed to carry a licence. Anyhoo there's no point in us arguing about it the Yanks are big on litigation, they'll likely have at it with a will.

So, the DA, the Defence and the Judge are all incorrect on the Law?

Come on Pritch, this is the perfect point in time to acknowledge the story that you were told by Activist media and the objective facts of the case do not align.

The law is quite clear, he's allowed to open carry a Rifle or a Shotgun under the age of 18.

That you think is anything other than that is proof as to how badly your trusted news sources have been lying to you about this case.

The families are apparently taking action against the police

Which, I actually support. Governments need to understand that if they let political riots happen because they specifically stopped the police from doing their jobs, then they will be held accountable.

All of this could have been stopped if the Rule of Law had been applied:

You can protest peacefully, you can't burn down private property.

Other judges might not be as sympathetic as Schroeder.

This is a narrative (again, from the same lying scumbag media) that the Judge was somehow biased.

A neutral judge could have easily and been *well* within their legal remit to:

- issued a directed verdict when Gage admitted he was only shot after he advanced on Kyle, pulling his weapon. or
- declared a mistrial with prejudice when the prosecution violated Kyle's 5th amendment rights. or
- also declared a mistrial when the Prosecution was tampering with evidence or trying to admit stuff into evidence they had previously been told wouldn't be allowed

A Biased judge would have thrown the case out in the opening day, and even then, given the overwhelming evidence - that wouldn't be that biased.

The fact he let the trial go all the way to Jury deliberation shows how unbiased he was.

* In English an "SBR" is called a carbine. From the way back mental stack, if the barrel length is less than 90 times the bore it's a carbine.

I didn't know that definition of a Carbine, I always thought a Carbine was a specifically shortened model, for use by mounted troops (in this day/age that's Tankers and truckers), whereas an SBR can start life as a full length rifle and be shortened down with a tax stamp.

Although now that I've typed that, it does kinda illuminate that functionally there's not much difference.

[R650R]

You have to ask why was this trial out of all the crazy and wacko things being pushed so much by USA and worldwide media... cause it fits their agenda. Where’s all the media coverage of citizens who legally defended themselves against violence , there’s about 18,000 events a year to choose from according to stats.....

Great that jury reached sensible verdict despite being hounded and stalked by media

And when it all unravelled oh how convenient we have the Xmas parade massacare as fresh distraction....

Must spread rep... well articulated points demonlord