The Judge appeared to strongly favour the defence from the outset in the words he banned in his Court. That's political.

The idea that the Democrats encourage lawbreaking, which appears among some here to be an established fact, is just more political hyperbole.

It's the whole system there which is no longer fit for purpose. That's the one thing that Trump got right. The swamp needs draining, but as most of the dirtiest muck lies on the right side he was never the man to do it. In the end he just made it deeper.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Not complicated. Everyone has the right to bear arms. You need a gun to shoot the bear since even John Wayne would have a problem wrestling one.

I think the amendment covers what happened that night.

It shouldn't have happened and I think most of us can agree on that.

If you introduce a gun into a situation....and there were plenty of guns out there the outcome is rarely proportionate because decisions have to be made quickly often in emotive circumstances.

However, when it comes to national policy America is about as far away from agreement on issues like this as it could be.....Distrust and polarisation between Republicans and Democrats is about as high as it can be without violence.

So the whole gun argument has no practical relevance in relation to them because nothing's going to change. I certainly wouldn't recommend to anyone in the States to give up arms....the future is too uncertain.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Nov 2021 9.56am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I agree. Anyone that uses gums to settle a dispute....well, they just suck.

Using a stick of Juicy Fruit in a threatening way is pretty cowardly as well.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Media. It's all b0110x. Opinion is formed and divided by media sources who are already politically-aligned.

Just to add, On the night of the shootings, law enforcement officers saw Rittenhouse and other armed people on the streets despite a curfew and gave them bottles of water, with one officer heard saying over a loudspeaker, “We appreciate you guys.”

Rittenhouse also spent some time as a youth police cadet.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Not if you believe, as many do, that it applies only to legally organised militias, as defined when it was written. So what you think, as a non US citizen, is hardly important.

Nor does it address the fact that this kid had no legitimate reason to be there. Had he not been, then 2 people would still have been alive, whether they were killed in self defence or not.

This is one of the issues to come out of this trial. The law there only considers the circumstances at the moment the weapon was fired. Not the context of why he was there or why he was carrying a weapon.

That, I think, will change.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.