Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Kyle Rittenhouse Tucker Carlson Fox News Interview Off the Rails" video.

What? Celebrate people's right to self defense? Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 criminals committing a felon that day in self defense. It would be crazy not to celebrate this.
3
How do I explain this gently to you, kid. That protest is on a public street, public street allows open carry. He was not at the protest, the protest was at a private property, which is illegal by the way, the protest was at a private property that he had the permission of the owner to protect. It was a different state in his country. United States of America has this thing called citizenship, with that citizenship you can cross any state border legally. And it's killing in self defense, which makes it legal. Why don't you learn how to think?
2
@jessejoyce1295 Listen, little kid. Self defense is legal, murder is illegal. So get your head out of your ass and don't confuse the two. People are entitled to kill anybody who reasonably and unlawfully threaten their life.
1
@clintonsmith5163 A trump rally is a private event involving a politician. You're not allowed to bring a gun there at all. Rittenhouse brought his gun to a "protest", organized by nobody, authorized by nobody. It's a public street, you're allowed to carry firearms there. See the difference, little kid? Why don't you stop watching Pakman and go study real law.
1
@clintonsmith5163 False, kid. If you have a gun illegally in places that don't allow you to have that gun, and then you having that gun is a reasonable reason for others to believe you're a criminal. Everybody has the right to attack you because you're in the act of committing a crime. How do I say this gently, you can have a gun illegally at private events and then use it to defend yourself legally if other people suddenly attack you. But if you bring out that gun intentionally and causes panic, you started the illegal conflict, you're not entitled to self defense anymore because you caused that panic. Rittenhouse did not started the illegal conflict because it was an open carry state, and it was a public street, he has every right to be there. Had the gun been there illegal, you would have to decide whether Kyle's action caused a "panic" and started the illegal conflict. But in this case Kyle did everything legally. But if you show up to a Trump rally and suddenly pull out a gun, you started the illegal conflict, stripping you of your rights to self defense. Get that, snowflake?
1
@turbo8481 We're pro baby life, you dummies, criminals who are committing felons, yeah, their lives are worth much less. That's how it is, kid. Only you barbarians think the life of a criminal actively attacking people is the same as the life of an unborn child. BARBARIANS.
1
@turbo8481 You're a barbarian who has the intellectual capability of a kid. It's kind of cool but it's also terrifying. It's your choice.
1
Go ahead, I'm sure a civil lawsuits from the family of 3 different criminals would go through easily. Please, if Rittenhouse is sued by those degenerates, we the people shall raise the money to crush those degenerates.
1
Killed 2 criminal in the act of self defense, kid. You're entitled to do that as well.
1
@MP4_mafia It does make them less human. When you committed a crime attacking people, you surrendered your right to live, because you have violated other people's right to live. You're no longer an innocent person. I don't know what your collective right is but we countless individuals do not accept such insanity. The society is collective of individuals, so if your "collective rights" conflict with "individual rights", well, then your collective rights do not exist at all. Because first and foremost, the individual right of everybody has to be respected. Why don't you take that meaningless theory to a judge and get thrown out test it's credibility? More guns do not reduce violence, more lives and more criminals will increase violence, that's statistics, bigger pool of people, more crime. by the nonsensical argument you're making. We should just kill all criminal, that will ensure "no criminal", it's a meaningless argument. The gun is a right, the right to own a weapon to defend yourself from other people and from the government. If we want to surrender our rights, we will do it ourselves, like we did with the automatic rifles. But it's not up to you to decide at all, kid. And there's no such thing as an "assault rifle", AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that design the gun. And it shoot one bullet at a time, just like a handgun. It just do it more efficiently because a handgun is easily disarmed, so not an ideal self defense weapon. Get down from your high horse of hypocrisy. Those criminals got shot because they were attacking somebody. Unfortunate, but life is not perfect. Society does not protect attackers from getting killed if the people they attack act in self defense.
1
@MP4_mafia That's his opinion, it's not a fact. This gun culture is what the people accept, you don't like it, try to amend it, you don't have the votes. The people here voted to accept that culture, just like they voted to accept liberty and democracy. Your feelings do not triumph over anybody else's feelings. Hey, if you feel sad that people enacting their right to self defense, you're welcome to vote against it. You'll be taken as a clown but it's your right of liberty, just like it's our right to own a firearm. We the people rank the lives of attackers like Mr Rosenbaum below the right of innocent civilians to own a weapon to defend himself from people like Mr Rosenbaum. If you don't like it, we don't actually care, we have the votes, that's democracy. It sucks for you but great for us. Just like even though how we dislike the State law system privilege that allows California to destroy itself and nobody can intervene, despite it dragging the country down with it, we have to accept it.
1
Yeah, that's what we civilized people do when we have to kill criminals in self defense. Maybe you barbarians should try that as well.
1