“Liberals Really Need to Look at the Fact that They’re Going to Need to Defend Themselves”

[2aguy]

As opposed to electing one as Speaker of the House (Hastert) and electing another one as President (fat former fascist)

When we found out about Hastert he was abandoned........you guys support your rapists, as you do with Rosenbaum..........and Clinton....the President actually accused of rape by 3 women, and sexual assault by about a dozen...he is still allowed to represent your party...

 

[Papageorgio]

Liberals really need to look at the fact that they’re going to need to defend themselves. This verdict isn’t this great acquittal of Rittenhouse being absolutely right, and now we can go shoot protestors. But it will empower a segment of the population to say, “Hey, look, we can go shoot legal protestors now without repercussion.” Liberals need to think about that. Liberals need to be aware that there is this right to self-defense. And one side shouldn’t be the only side that’s armed.

A Liberal Gun Rights Advocate Explains What Both Sides Got Wrong About Kyle Rittenhouse

“It doesn’t complicate my ideas about it. It’s always been complicated. Who’s the good guy with the gun?”

slate.com

And here we go!

Do you think everyone should be armed at these demonstrations?

Demonstrations or riots? Kenosha was a riot, no one should have been there not Rittenhouse or those victims.

The rest of your crap is just that, crap. No one unless it is a left wing nut will come to your conclusions.

The moral of the story is don't go to riots and expect to have any protection.

 

[Hellbilly]

80 people were murdered by an asshole in a nightclub by arson. Every year people are murdered by arsonists.

How about this, if you commit a violent crime, expect a violent response.

I have no issues with frontier justice.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Liberals really need to look at the fact that they’re going to need to defend themselves. This verdict isn’t this great acquittal of Rittenhouse being absolutely right, and now we can go shoot protestors. But it will empower a segment of the population to say, “Hey, look, we can go shoot legal protestors now without repercussion.” Liberals need to think about that. Liberals need to be aware that there is this right to self-defense. And one side shouldn’t be the only side that’s armed.

Lara Smith seems to always omit one important aspect of the Rittenhouse case:
Self Defense!
I don't know if that's intentional or not but can you ignore the glaring
elephant in the conversation.

Rittenhouse wasn't just shooting protestors...he shot protestors that attacked and threatened him
with guns themselves!

The incredible disconnect among the left, ignoring facts and laying their own insane biases over it all,
makes rational discussion with much of the left impossible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow.....your Rittenhouse Syndrome is really bad....you need to get professional help.

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and carry firearms for lawful self-defense.

And unlike conservatives, liberals support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Liberals are perfectly capable of defending themselves from the violent, lawless right – with deadly force if warranted and necessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Liberals really need to look at the fact that they’re going to need to defend themselves. This verdict isn’t this great acquittal of Rittenhouse being absolutely right, and now we can go shoot protestors. But it will empower a segment of the population to say, “Hey, look, we can go shoot legal protestors now without repercussion.”

Only those people too stupid to understand the meaning of :"self-defene" as per their state laws.
Given the reaction from the verdict, these people are most likely to be --among-- the BLMob, not those who oppose them.
Thus, this verdict makes it more dangerous to protest against the BLMob, not with it.

 

[HenryBHough]

A true liberal white person armed with a gun is confronted by a "person of color"- black, brown, red, maybe spotted - who is similarly armed. Said white person immediately pulls his/her/its weapon and shoots him/her/its self in the head to (choose one):

1. Prevent the "person of color" from being accused ever so unfairly.
2. Acceptance of white inferiority.
3. Inability to resist a virtue-signaling opportunity.
4. Abject stupidity.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

For liberals, I suggest the new Cold LESOCOM in 5.56mm. Light weight so you carry it during a protest with plenty of stopping power. And it looks cool.

 

[Orangecat]

This means that you are not intelligent enough to grasp what is going on around you because you have to be told what to think, and what to feel.

Skews last breakup:

 

[M14 Shooter]

For liberals, I suggest the new Cold LESOCOM in 5.56mm. Light weight so you carry it during a protest with plenty of stopping power. And it looks cool.

As most liberals know nothing about guns, they don't want iron sights.

 

[Orangecat]

I have no issues with frontier justice.

You appear to have issues with self defense, though. The verdict is in.

 

[Orangecat]

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and carry firearms for lawful self-defense.

Traits they share with Rittenhouse, obviously.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

As most liberals know nothing about guns, they don't want iron sights.

I would advise them to take shooting classes too. Complete noobs often do better at shooting class because they aren't carrying around a lot of false gun lore and they listen to their instructors more.

 

[Calypso Jones]

How about this, if you commit a violent crime, expect a violent response.

especially if the police have been defunded and can't make it to the scene. Do they REALLY think that decent law abiding people are gonna let an arsonist continue to destroy peoples' homes, businesses and human beings. The left better be damn sure they know what they're unleashing. Many people aren't going to look to the impotent gov't. They're gonna handle the problem themselves.

 

[marvin martian]

Liberals really need to look at the fact that they’re going to need to defend themselves. This verdict isn’t this great acquittal of Rittenhouse being absolutely right, and now we can go shoot protestors. But it will empower a segment of the population to say, “Hey, look, we can go shoot legal protestors now without repercussion.” Liberals need to think about that. Liberals need to be aware that there is this right to self-defense. And one side shouldn’t be the only side that’s armed.

A Liberal Gun Rights Advocate Explains What Both Sides Got Wrong About Kyle Rittenhouse

“It doesn’t complicate my ideas about it. It’s always been complicated. Who’s the good guy with the gun?”

slate.com

And here we go!

Do you think everyone should be armed at these demonstrations?

You should have watched the trial, or had someone more intelligent than you (anyone) explain it to you.

You're very severely misinformed about what happened, and now you're spreading that misinformation.

 

[westwall]

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and carry firearms for lawful self-defense.

And unlike conservatives, liberals support and defend Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Liberals are perfectly capable of defending themselves from the violent, lawless right – with deadly force if warranted and necessary.

But it's the violent progressive left who overwhelmingly commits the violence.

 

[marvin martian]

Liberals need to carry guns, period – not just at protests.

They need to defend themselves against the violent, lawless right.

Conservatives have made it clear that they feel justified to resort to violence if they believe the political process is against them; the Rittenhouse verdict has sanctioned conservatives to commit acts of murder with impunity by making bad faith claims of ‘self-defense.’

Your fellow BLM/Klantifa rioters killed almost 30 people in 2020 alone. Anyone who DOESN'T arm themselves around savages like that is a fool.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Liberals really need to look at the fact that they’re going to need to defend themselves. This verdict isn’t this great acquittal of Rittenhouse being absolutely right, and now we can go shoot protestors. But it will empower a segment of the population to say, “Hey, look, we can go shoot legal protestors now without repercussion.” Liberals need to think about that. Liberals need to be aware that there is this right to self-defense. And one side shouldn’t be the only side that’s armed.

A Liberal Gun Rights Advocate Explains What Both Sides Got Wrong About Kyle Rittenhouse

“It doesn’t complicate my ideas about it. It’s always been complicated. Who’s the good guy with the gun?”

slate.com

And here we go!

Do you think everyone should be armed at these demonstrations?

We've been trying to explain the importance of gun ownership for self defense to you people for decades...lol

Should the Libtards show up to riot, armed as well? Bad Idea, but I see it become a win for society, therefore, I support it.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

But they already learned that. The people Kyle pointed his gun at should have blown his head off with rifles,. Would have saved 3 people from getting shot. Protestors also learned that the cops will leave you alone, if you have guns.

And that would have been murder.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I think zaminski, another arsonist and looter had his gun illegally too....

Zaminski is up on charges for some of his conduct during the riot, that's why neither the prosecution or defense could call him as a witness, his wife has already pled out on her charges. That was in the record of the trial from when the defense objected to the prosecution referring to them in its closing arguments. The judge ruled that the prosecution couldn't refer to Zaminski, but could refer to his wife because she no longer enjoyed fifth amendment protections.