TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote: They deleted or had my comment on FB removed. It wasn't a threat in any way. The other social media I saw for them had comments turned off so I don't know who they are getting threats from. I have never been a fan of boycotts, but I'm think more and more that gun owners need to somehow organize to punish anti gun businesses like Wells Fargo that recently terminated the account of Wexler Firearms in Florida after 25 years. Perhaps there should be an organized coordination for gun owners with WF accounts to open accounts in local banks and credit unions and then on a designated date and at a designated time go in and demand their funds and close their accounts in every Wells Fargo financial institution across the US. Like the sit-ins that Jesse Jackson led to demand mortgages from banks.

I have believed, since the new account scandal broke a few years ago, that Wells Fargo is an amoral organization and I will never do business with them again. I bought a house and years later refinanced the mortgage. In both cases, my mortgage was sold to Wells Fargo and they were absolutely miserable to deal with. They have no concept of customer service, even when I proved them to be wrong in what they were doing. It is my opinion that when the core management of an organization is morally rotting, their decisions across the board are bad for everyone - their employees, their suppliers and their customers. As a friend of mine loves to quote "the leopard never changes his spots". Evil organizations never seem to miss a chance to do evil.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:52 pm

I could almost agree that none of this should make Rittenhouse a folk hero. Even knowing our history of making folk heroes out of criminals like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Al Capone, and Bonnie and Clyde, I think this makes Rittenhouse much more of a folk hero than anything George Floyd did. And if the left can build monuments to him, the right can certainly elevate Rittenhouse's stature somewhat.

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:26 am Post-trial, I am mostly agreeing with this perspective: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... el/620715/ . Easy for me to say since I had no property at risk from rioting arsonists. But that is one more reason I wouldn't want an armed teenager there, either.

OK. I'll take the devil's advocate role and say that I completely disagree with the author's perspective in this Atlantic essay. In full disclosure, I think that the Atlantic is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the Left and rarely find anything that it publishes with which I can agree.

The one statement in the article that underscores my point is this:

The narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense.

The author then goes on to cite police shootings including Jacob Blake and throws the McCluskeys in for good measure. So where is the equivalency between the McCluskeys and Rittenhouse? They both opposed BLM. And that makes them wrong "in every moral sense."

Looking at it from a different perspective, the three men who were shot by Rittenhouse could have chosen to ignore him. There seems to be agreement that he was in no way the aggressor. But his presence, like the presence of the McCluskeys outside their home is morally wrong and it must be punished. We are back to people being "triggered". I'm pretty sure that there are no boundaries to that - trigger is in the eye of the beholder.

I'll give that author of the article credit. He does acknowledge that everyone is entitled to protect themselves. But in many cases, merely existing is a reason why people need to protect themselves. The author says that Rittenhouse was not a hero. I disagree with that, too. I feel strongly that he made a mistake by going into the middle of that fray. But his heroic behavior stems from a very limited response to that attacks launched against him. He could have unleashed far more than he did - as much as CNN accused him of unleashing. But he didn't. He stopped the threats and stopped when they were no longer threats. That takes a level of restraint that many, perhaps even me, may not be able to duplicate in difficult circumstances.

Just when I didn't think that this situation could get any more bizarre and distorted, I watched the protest of the trial on Brooklyn, NY as broadcast on Fox News. In the front ranks of the protestors behind the Fox reporter where two individuals carrying flag of Palestine. I've felt from the beginning that this case was co-oped for political reasons. Now they have taken even that to a new level. Palestine....Rittenhouse - how do you connect those dots?

TomV wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:44 pm Prayers for the young man and his family that they now find a way to have a peaceful life.

.......After he sues the "stuff" out all who slandered him.

I predicted a hung jury. I cannot tell you how happy I am that I was wrong. Prayers for him, his family and all who might yet suffer from this horrible debacle.

Here is yet another angle that I had not heard put together this way.

1. Jacob Blake was shot by a racist white cop.
2. The riots which protested the racist shooting were righteous
3. Anyone who opposed the righteous riots is a white supremacist, attempting to suppress righteous anger.
4. The guys that Rittenhouse shot were rioting and advancing the cause against white supremacy and therefore, regardless of their skin color “brothers” of the cause
5. People who oppose the cause need to be destroyed. Anyone who doesn’t want to see Rittenhouse killed or jailed for life is also a white supremacist and needs to destroyed, too.

This is how you get to the matter being racial even without a person of color involved.

tomneal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:00 am First let me repeat:
If I thought there was going to be a gun fight, I just wouldn't go.

I think a part of this prosecution is to discourage regular folks, every where, from defending themselves.

I watched parts of the trial. The defense closing arguments were a good summary of the case. Including video. The only mistake I saw from KR was being at the wrong place at the wrong time and getting separated from his buddies. Every shot he took, was defending himself from great bodily harm or death.

Unlike the jurors in this trial,
I have never been in a bar fight.

On the stand, Kyle said that he went to Kenosha to help defend where his father lives. While I can agree with not wanting to be someplace where I know that a gun fight in which I would otherwise have no involvement would breakout, it becomes a more difficult question when family and family property are involved. I've not yet accepted that, as the LAPD recommends, I should just hand over to looters and robbers whatever they want. Whether I would personally have gone to Kenosha if I had family there is a question that is difficult for me to answer. I also have a lot more years of experience than Rittenhouse had a 17. I remember doing some foolish things at that age. Foolish is a lot different than illegal.

I have never doubted the legal precedent that this case could set. If the argument that being armed is automatically provocative enough to wave our right to self defense, as the prosecution is claiming, then all self-defense laws across the country are in jeopardy. It is particularly bad for those of us of advanced years who could not hold our own in a fist fight with a much younger person to hear that Rittenhouse "brought a gun to a fist fight." This case is much larger than just one young boy.

I had this show up on my Farcebook feed



I hope that it displays correctly, In the event that it doesn't, it is a comparison between Rittenhouse and Tamir Rice, 12 years old who was killed in 2014 with a replica Airsoft pistol with the orange ring on the barrel removed. The poster was saying that it is racism that one died and the other went home the night after their respective incidents and that the difference is why people march. I could not figure out why a white teenager shooting other white men was racist. This explains it. I'm fascinated by the false equivalencies that are used to justify finding racism in nearly everything.

It is an interesting mental exercise to compare the two situations.

It seems clear to me that the Dems have given up (at least for the moment) on trying to get gun control legislation passed. It was always going to be an end run on the 2nd Amendment. Now, the strategy is to make it nearly impossible to use a firearm for self-defense. Soros has gotten enough of his minions installed as District Attorneys with little chance for push back on their actions. They will continue to charge police officers and citizens instead of the actual criminals in these situations.