Black privilege

submitted by Rob3122 from u.smutty.horse

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rob3122[S] 16 insightful - 5 fun16 insightful - 4 fun17 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

Rittenhouse killed 2 worthless jews of which one was a pedophile(no surprise since he was a jew after all) and the other likes to beat on women. Kyle made the world a better place. Meanwhile simpkins(fitting name) chose to bring a gun to a school where he shot several kids and a teacher in the back.

You're right...there is no comparison.

[–]wendyokoopa1 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

I have to agree with Rob and add that the us constitution basically states that should local, state and federal forms of law enforcement fail during times of crisis to protect a free and civilized society it is the duty of a free people to form an organized militia.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

No. Read the constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Was the kid part of a well regulated miliia? (no)

Was he helping with the security of a free state? (no)

Does the law against murdering unarmed people infringe on his right to keep and bear arms? (no)

Are there videos of him actively pursuing people with the intent to potentially cause harm? (yes)

Was he instead supposed to stand in front of a person's business, to offer security for that business? (perhaps)

Did he do that? (no)

Could he have avoided pursuing and murdering people? (yes)

Is he guilty of manslaughter (1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree)? (yes)

Will that mean that he'll spend much time in jail? (no, perhaps 2 years for each charge = 4, and out on parole in 3)

Is he a hero for racists and gun lobbyists, who've sent him $500,000? (obviously)

Should others feel free to do what he did? (no)

Will they do what he did if he gets a lenient sentence? (perhaps)

Do you want to live in a society where you can be threatened by a person with a gun, though you are unarmed, and you are then murdered?

[–]Zapped 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Actually, he was part of a militia. They were there to defend property owners against the riot mob. You may not understand the rules concerning how a militia can form and operate. Your statements on him pursuing the mob and not trying to avoid having to shoot people are flat out wrong using the video evidence available to everyone. I'm surprised because you are usually more careful with your facts here.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Yes - they can call themselves whatever they'd like, and many of them remained next to the businesses they wanted to protect. I have no problem with that. It was NOT, however:

A well regulated Militia

This is the main problem. The kid thought he had immunity to walk around intimidating people. Even if he mistakenly killed 2 of them, it's still manslaughter, for which he should face justice for those deaths. He had the ability to stay with the so-called militia, next to the buildings, but did not.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

did you watchthe video, he was running away from the crazed mob, then knocked down, then shot them in self defense

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No offence, but you need to read up on what a militia is and not what your idea of what it is. In the U.S., a militia is a gathering, or group, of citizens whose goal is to be ready to be called upon in a time of need. They cannot be "organized" or have structure.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Excellent - let's consider primary and secondary sources for our underestanding of the second amendment, and its approach to "a well regulated militia" (a better version of an 'organized' militia). James Madison wrote that amendment, so that it would be possible for civilian forces to counteract potential tyrannical develoopements in the federal government. Anti-Federalists were worried at the time that the federal government had too much power because it also had a standing military (per the Constitutional Convention. Anti-Federalists wanted to limit the federal government's ability to violently oppress citizens. What Madison also wanted to protect against was mob rule and vigilantism, in addition to government oppression. By allowing for a potential REGULATED militia, he and congress developed one of the important aspects of government "checks and balances". For example, the increasingly militarized police forces, as well as armed vigilante mobs, are both to be avoided with the help of these checks and balances. Problem is: right-wing movements in D.C. and around the country are acively trying to DEREGULATE everything, so that the right-wing .1% and corporations legislate only for themselves while inciting violence among the 99%, with mobs of armed and unarmed groups arguing over basic facts (eg. basic human rights &c). Here's a secondary source.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cool read.

There is a difference between a regulated or organized militia, such as the National Guard, and an unregulated or unorganized militia, such as the group Kyle Rittenhouse was part of. Truth be told, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia.