And that's the rub, right? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that going for a more fitting sentence (IMO) is REALLY running the risk coming up empty-handed, with the way the laws are written and with how this played out. Based on what I know of the case, I'd probably be a little more risk-averse in terms of charges to make sure I do nail him. Also make sure I get him on every single little thing he did leading up to the shooting.
I am one...and I agree
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I think proving intent is a tricky thing in this case. Again, I'm not a lawyer so maybe this isn't as tricky as I think it is... but doesn't the prosecution have to firmly prove that he left his house with the intent to shoot someone to prove intent? The way I see it, the defense only has to say that Rittenhouse didn't understand the consequences of his actions until it was too late and the whole intent argument goes out the window. Prosecution basically has to have Rittenhouse saying "I'm going to go commit a crime now" or they have nothing (if they need to prove intent).
I don't like saying that as I think he more or less knew what he was doing... but where do I have this wrong?
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crine because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?
Your point of reference does not apply. Rittenhouse was not on his own property so castle laws/theory do not apply.
He was in a public place with an open firearm. It is a very complex case, agreed, but half the battle is not to willingly place yourself in a risky position in the first place.
My guess is that he will be found guilty of the crimes that placed him in the position that he found himself, transporting firearms across a state lines, and reduced charges associated with the crime itself. It was a dumbass move in the first place. He was not and is not law enforcement. He can’t go into a volatile situation and inflame it.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crine because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?
Your point of reference does not apply. Rittenhouse was not on his own property so castle laws/theory do not apply.
He was in a public place with an open firearm. It is a very complex case, agreed, but half the battle is not to willingly place yourself in a risky position in the first place.
My guess is that he will be found guilty of the crimes that placed him in the position that he found himself, transporting firearms across a state lines, and reduced charges associated with the crime itself. It was a dumbass move in the first place. He was not and is not law enforcement. He can’t go into a volatile situation and inflame it.
Reread my post and found it ambiguous. The point was that the person breaking with a gun in kills the homeowner, but it isn't a crime because the homeowner attacked him in the house and the criminal feared for his life.
But I need to rephrase it anyway as Duty is picking nits digging deep into specifics rather than being able or more likely being unwilling to conceptualize.
Let's say I go into a Walmart brandishing a gun. The other customers fear that I am about to start shooting people. Some run and hide other try to take the gun away. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crime because I feared for my life.
I guess I don't see claiming that he feared for his life is a free pass to kill whomever you choose.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
I tend to agree with the scenario as you described. If brandishing means open carry, then others are equally fearful of their lives. They “conceputulize” that they are in danger. But the first move was to brandish the gun. Defense of oneself can only be applied when you are placed at risk by someone else. You can’t be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
Just look at jfanents post. The kid was committing a criminal offense. He broke the law and during the commission of breaking those laws he killed people. First he was not old enough to possess the weapon. Secondly he crossed state lines while possessing it. Anyone who believes the kid didn't go there with ill intent is fooling themselves. He was on a hunting expedition. Waiting for any excuse to kill someone. The cops who just passed him by and did nothing should also be held partly responsible.
While in some ways I agree, you don't know his state of mind or intent.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I tend to agree with the scenario as you described. If brandishing means open carry, then others are equally fearful of their lives. They “conceputulize” that they are in danger. But the first move was to brandish the gun. Defense of oneself can only be applied when you are placed at risk by someone else. You can’t be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another.
I agree completely with your post, but those defending him seem to be arguing that you can be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
I tend to agree with the scenario as you described. If brandishing means open carry, then others are equally fearful of their lives. They “conceputulize” that they are in danger. But the first move was to brandish the gun. Defense of oneself can only be applied when you are placed at risk by someone else. You can’t be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another.
I agree completely with your post, but those defending him seem to be arguing that you can be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another
To be clear, my own hangup is how the prosecution words this in court. 'Without a reasonable doubt' is a big big hurdle here, the way I see it. Things are much simpler in oober's courtroom.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Just look at jfanents post. The kid was committing a criminal offense. He broke the law and during the commission of breaking those laws he killed people. First he was not old enough to possess the weapon. Secondly he crossed state lines while possessing it. Anyone who believes the kid didn't go there with ill intent is fooling themselves. He was on a hunting expedition. Waiting for any excuse to kill someone. The cops who just passed him by and did nothing should also be held partly responsible.
While in some ways I agree, you don't know his state of mind or intent.
And that is why I see the possibility of his cyber footprint as possibly being critical in this case. As I said, most everyone at his age has a cyber footprint. Social networks, e.mails, google searches and the like. In many criminal cases these days such information is used in court to show intent. I have no idea as to what they will find in that regard but it could be a very critical component in this instance. It will be an interesting case to say the least and the reaction no matter which way it's decided will not be pleasant.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I tend to agree with the scenario as you described. If brandishing means open carry, then others are equally fearful of their lives. They “conceputulize” that they are in danger. But the first move was to brandish the gun. Defense of oneself can only be applied when you are placed at risk by someone else. You can’t be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another.
I agree completely with your post, but those defending him seem to be arguing that you can be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another
To be clear, my own hangup is how the prosecution words this in court. 'Without a reasonable doubt' is a big big hurdle here, the way I see it. Things are much simpler in oober's courtroom.
We might move over to your side of Butler-Warren in the next 2 years or so, so you just let me know when you're running for judge, and you'll have my vote.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Let me come try to bash your head in with a skateboard. Then tell me you weren't in danger.
Show me where he was threatened with a skate board
Now, I'm not defending him being there. I'm not defending him being underage and carrying a rifle in public. I'm not defending him apparently having taken said weapon across state lines.
Chased, kicked in the face, then bashed with a skate board.
The first shot he fired? I have no statement on that - probably a wrong thing to do though.
If that were the case he would have been firing at random into crowds.
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
If that were the case he would have been firing at random into crowds.
bro, you do realize the reason he got chased is because he was getting into people's faces, pointing the weapon at others and threatening them, and they tried to take the gun away, right?
again, in a vacuum, i would've shot dudes trying to hit me with skateboards as well. but we need to stop acting as if this was unprovoked. the kid went there looking for trouble, and went out of his way to have a reason to shoot someone.
at some point, you conservatives need to understand that there is a growing population amongst you that look at guns from a masculinity perspective, rather than a protection perspective.
and there is a major difference between those.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....
Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....
Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right
A growing number? Lol.
Got news for you, Bub. 99.9% (if not higher) of conservatives think that notion is ridiculous.
You and yours have a real penchant for creating some scary-azz-monster out of "a guy stood up".
And then you ask arch, as if he may be one in favor of going out and shooting democrats?? Not sure if that's more of an insult to arch or the boards collective intelligence. Wow!
Madison Cawthorn speaks openly about civil war at this point
“If our electoral systems continue to be rigged and stolen, it will lead to one place, and that is bloodshed,” Cawthorn said at the Republican event. “And I want to tell you: As much as I am willing to defend our freedom at all costs, there is nothing I would fear to do more than have to take up arms against an American. And the way we can make use of it is if we all passionately demand that we have security of choice in all 50 states. ”
He's not just some random crazy guy standing up and asking a politician a question. He is a congressman of North Carolina's 11th Congressional district who said this to a crowd of supporters in his own district. I certainly feel it's only a fringe element of the Republican party. I don't think it represents the vast majority of Republicans by any means. But it's certainly more common now than any point in my lifetime and not isolated to a select few. But let's be honest here, if they're supporting and electing politicians who are saying these things, they must agree with the sentiment.
And for the record I don't think arch is such a person. While he is seldom ever willing to speak out against many things he most likely disagrees with, that's just how political issues work these days. Everyone has their heels dug in and feel if they agree on anything the "other side" says or does, or if they criticise anyone in the party they normally endorse it's some sign of weakness.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....
Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right
A growing number? Lol.
Got news for you, Bub. 99.9% (if not higher) of conservatives think that notion is ridiculous.
You and yours have a real penchant for creating some scary-azz-monster out of "a guy stood up".
And then you ask arch, as if he may be one in favor of going out and shooting democrats?? Not sure if that's more of an insult to arch or the boards collective intelligence. Wow!
99.9%,,, NO,, Not hardly.. But let's say you are right,, just for the sake of this discussion. 99.9% of Conservatives don't follow that thinking. then Why the hell doesn't that 99.9% stand up and SHUT down the rest?
What, are they afraid of Trump? You and yours seem to have a penchant for downplaying anything that makes Trumpians look like fools.
If 99.9% don't agree, then 99.9% of Conservatives are WEAK because they aren't standing up to the 1/10th that thinks there should be civil war! That 1/10th is running around like a bunch of Loons threatening everybody and Anybody that in any way shape or form disagrees with them. That 1/10th is all we ever hear from. They are pretty damn loud for such a small group... I hear almost no other conservatives stand up. Cheney is one. That's about it. And when one does, they get shunned by the Trumpians...
For the record, I think your percentages are way off.....I don't know what the right numbers are, but I'll bet you that you are wrong.
"A Guy Stood UP"
You mean like this Rittenhouse idiot... Or did you mean the hundreds that stormed the capital on 1/6. Or how about that jackass that doesn't feel he needs a mask because God will protect him, but he feels the need to carry a semi automatic weapon into at Dunkin Donuts for protection (I suspect he's over compensating for a tiny penis)? Or maybe the politicians like Bobert or Green or Gaetz who run around stirring up anger towards those that oppose their ideas that the election was stolen
By the way, MY NAME AIN'T BUB....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
99.9 would not equal one tenth... it would equal 1/1000
"A guy stood up" is referring to your example, you used it to try to paint some ludicrous, absurd narrative of "growing numbers" of people that think they should arm themselves to "take back their country", or some such nonsense.
These would not be "Trumpians", they would be wack jobs. Calling them Trumpians is like calling a serial killer a bully. But let's lump everybody together in the name of Trump so that you can then blame all the people that aren't doing it... for doing nothing to stop it??? Just can't make this stuff up!
I'm generally a conservative, so now that I'm weak... and obviously responsible for their actions... please explain to me what you think is my responsibility in an effort to "shout them down"?
"Hey, stop it, that's not very nice!!" You crack me up.
Lastly, they are not that "damn loud". They have a small voice that the media and people like you hand a megaphone with all your paranoid theories... and not stop posting of each anecdotal event as if it is some pulse of the real world. Funny thing is, it's your clan that is the #1 reason for any growing numbers at all. You insult everyone that has any affiliation with "conservative" as if they are scum of the earth -- while you sit atop your pedestal as some strange model of everything just and pure.
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....
Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right
A growing number? Lol.
Got news for you, Bub. 99.9% (if not higher) of conservatives think that notion is ridiculous.
You and yours have a real penchant for creating some scary-azz-monster out of "a guy stood up".
And then you ask arch, as if he may be one in favor of going out and shooting democrats?? Not sure if that's more of an insult to arch or the boards collective intelligence. Wow!
99.9%? That's a damn lie.
And anybody paying attention knows if Trump ever gets back into the OVAL, the empty suits in power on the right will fold with zero fight and help Trump usher in fascism.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/30/2106:53 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
I do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.
Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....
Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right
A growing number? Lol.
Got news for you, Bub. 99.9% (if not higher) of conservatives think that notion is ridiculous.
You and yours have a real penchant for creating some scary-azz-monster out of "a guy stood up".
And then you ask arch, as if he may be one in favor of going out and shooting democrats?? Not sure if that's more of an insult to arch or the boards collective intelligence. Wow!
99.9%? That's a damn lie.
And anybody paying attention knows if Trump ever gets back into the OVAL, the empty suits in power on the right will fold with zero fight and help Trump usher in fascism.
It's a lie??
Prove me wrong, I'll wait.
Start compiling your list of 75,000 conservatives that think they should take up arms against democrats.
So you aren't going to address an actual Republican congressman supporting this idea to his constituents? Others in the first link I posted? You keep pointing to "one whack job" when I've clearly shown it's a far bigger issue than that.
Gaetz Tells Supporters Second Amendment Is For ‘Armed Rebellion Against The Government’
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told supporters Thursday that they should “use” their Second Amendment rights and that the amendment’s provision of a right to bear arms is meant for “armed rebellion” rather than hunting—but on Friday he denied criticism that he was fomenting violence.
You really need to stop acting like it's just a few nut jobs. This is the message that even some elected Republican officials are espousing to their voters. And let's not pretend those people aren't listening. After all, those voters are electing them.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
99.9 would not equal one tenth... it would equal 1/1000
"A guy stood up" is referring to your example, you used it to try to paint some ludicrous, absurd narrative of "growing numbers" of people that think they should arm themselves to "take back their country", or some such nonsense.
These would not be "Trumpians", they would be wack jobs. Calling them Trumpians is like calling a serial killer a bully. But let's lump everybody together in the name of Trump so that you can then blame all the people that aren't doing it... for doing nothing to stop it??? Just can't make this stuff up!
I'm generally a conservative, so now that I'm weak... and obviously responsible for their actions... please explain to me what you think is my responsibility in an effort to "shout them down"?
"Hey, stop it, that's not very nice!!" You crack me up.
Lastly, they are not that "damn loud". They have a small voice that the media and people like you hand a megaphone with all your paranoid theories... and not stop posting of each anecdotal event as if it is some pulse of the real world. Funny thing is, it's your clan that is the #1 reason for any growing numbers at all. You insult everyone that has any affiliation with "conservative" as if they are scum of the earth -- while you sit atop your pedestal as some strange model of everything just and pure.
Big freakin deal,,, You still are full of BS on the 99.9% crap
As of Right now, the Republican Party is saying that roughly 66% of republicans support and believe the BIG LIE.. So once again, you are dead nuts wrong.
As for the weak comment, I never said you were responsible for their actions.. I said what you are responsible for is not standing up and fighting the stupidity of the Big Lie...
Not that Damn Loud? Is that like 1/6 was just a peaceful demonstration? You must hard of hearing...because it's freakin loud..
My Clan? I was a republican until the Republican party decided to support Trump. But I can no longer be a part of a party that overwhelmingly supports that liar..
I DO NOT insult everyone that has an affiliation with "conservative" thinking.. I do attempt to insult everyone that is Trumpian..
The hey stop that comment,, don't get it,, I don't remember saying that.. sounds like you being foolish again.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
yeah, all that. And you had the nerve to question me in my post? I laid it out, explicitly, and you had the nerve to question/ask me? Please, you've gotten your names on here honestly.
So you aren't going to address an actual Republican congressman supporting this idea to his constituents? Others in the first link I posted? You keep pointing to "one whack job" when I've clearly shown it's a far bigger issue than that.
Gaetz Tells Supporters Second Amendment Is For ‘Armed Rebellion Against The Government’
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told supporters Thursday that they should “use” their Second Amendment rights and that the amendment’s provision of a right to bear arms is meant for “armed rebellion” rather than hunting—but on Friday he denied criticism that he was fomenting violence.
You really need to stop acting like it's just a few nut jobs. This is the message that even some elected Republican officials are espousing to their voters. And let's not pretend those people aren't listening. After all, those voters are electing them.
They get their jollies talking about getting their guns and owning libs... If half of them got punched in the nose they would fold like a cheap suit. But the other half is just nuts enough to take this rhetoric serious and really do want violence to happen. And there are a lot mor than .01 percent of GOPers in that club. My guess is more like 5-10 percent minimum. Too many of them talk this ish like it's a goal.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/31/2109:11 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
You're the one telling lies, you prove it to me. Bring receipts or shut up.
Awwwe. Panties in a bunch again? You called me a liar, now it's "shut up". Seems like you have little to no semblance of emotional maturity. I'll let you and your buddy have the thread back.
[quote=archbolddawg]yeah, all that. And you had the nerve to question me in my post? I laid it out, explicitly, and you had the nerve to question/ask me? Please, you've gotten your names on here honestly.
When it comes to Trumpians, I question everything...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
You're the one telling lies, you prove it to me. Bring receipts or shut up.
Awwwe. Panties in a bunch again? You called me a liar, now it's "shut up". Seems like you have little to no semblance of emotional maturity. I'll let you and your buddy have the thread back.
You can think whatever the hell you want Fate. But when you come in here spewing CRAP and expect us to accept it as fact just because you said it... well this ain't 4chan or a Trump rally bro. And please do leave the thread, thanks for making DT great again.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Yet you conveniently refuse to answer any of the legitimate points I brought up. Why is that?
Honestly? Because I don't even read your posts anymore. 100% (not 99.9) of them change the narrative or move the goalposts. It's all whatabouts and endless gurble-gobble, I've moved on from engaging with you months ago. A magic 8 ball provides more stimulating conversation and is usually more accurate.
You're the one telling lies, you prove it to me. Bring receipts or shut up.
Awwwe. Panties in a bunch again? You called me a liar, now it's "shut up". Seems like you have little to no semblance of emotional maturity. I'll let you and your buddy have the thread back.
You can think whatever the hell you want Fate. But when you come in here spewing CRAP and expect us to accept it as fact just because you said it... well this ain't 4chan or a Trump rally bro. And please do leave the thread, thanks for making DT great again.
You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension and a tougher time with ever being civil in conversation. Anything you don't like results in name-calling and telling people to shut up. I would never expect you to accept anything that doesn't fit your convoluted belief system.
I said 99.9% because I believe it to be accurate. I can't imagine anymore than 1 in a thousand people that would think they should arm themselves and shoot democrats to solve any political divide. If you believe that's inaccurate, good for you. It was never presented as anything more than conjecture. YOU then called me a LIAR.
Your boy tried to use an example of one dude standing up at a rally as further evidence that there are "growing numbers" of people that think they should arm themselves and shoot people of the opposing political party. Even typing this has my head spinning, all I can picture is Chicken Little. Are there people that would do this or advocate this? YES... on both sides of the fence., but they would be very small groups... on both sides. If you and your group of conspiracy theorists want to believe this is some wide swath of America -- good for you.
Bottom line, my opinion is no more CRAP than yours is, I don't expect anyone to believe it and can't really care less if you do or not. If you think that yelling, calling me names, telling me to shut up, etc, will make me run and hide, you are clearly delusional.
75,000,000 people voted for Trump, even more that didn't would consider themselves "conservative". Simple math says that removing 99.9% would leave 75,000.
If you believe that many Americans believe they should take up arms and shoot the opposition, you're welcome to your opinion, just as I'm welcome to mine. Doesn't make you or I a LIAR.
Still dodging them. At least this time you made some weak excuse for it. Everything I posted was on topic. It was relative to the conversation. You see, there is a vast chasm between a few isolated incidents and an epidemic. As of now this issue seems to be neither. But it is a growing problem. As of now you even have Republican elected officials espousing this tripe. Your claims of a few isolated cases is incorrect.
I can see why trying to shoot the messenger would be far easier than addressing that. It seems as though you just stooped to the exact same level you are demeaning OCD for. Not surprising.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image from y.yarn.co]](https://y.yarn.co/4b1b81e5-0163-4ec7-b66f-8b8a288b4c1e_text.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]](https://c.tenor.com/f5asRSsfl-wAAAAM/good-boy-pat-on-head.gif)