Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted

America’s fvcking broken. The constitution is bollocks. And now he’s going to become a political poster child for the whackos. In their eyes he’s a hero, and it’s absolutely fvcked.

 

I dislike this country, but at least our teenagers aren’t out with weapons intended for war, killing people. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCFCCHRIS

LCFCCHRIS

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I haven’t really followed the Rittenhouse thing, so can’t really comment on the trial or the verdict, but am I the only one who finds the idea of a 17 year old being in possession of an assault rifle and a handgun extremely concerning?

Definitely. I think their constitution was a very smart move when it was conceived, it tried to avoid future tyranny. Very forward thinking. But with how good firearms are nowadays, it makes it harder to defend the right to bear arms. 

 

I'm certainly happy guns are so much less prevalent here in the UK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCFCCHRIS

LCFCCHRIS

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

America’s fvcking broken. The constitution is bollocks. And now he’s going to become a political poster child for the whackos. In their eyes he’s a hero, and it’s absolutely fvcked.

 

I dislike this country, but at least our teenagers aren’t out with weapons intended for war, killing people. 

England? It's not perfect which no country will ever be but you have to consider we probably live in one of the best countries and eras compared to 99.9% of human existence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MarshallForEngland

Guest MarshallForEngland

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I haven’t really followed the Rittenhouse thing, so can’t really comment on the trial or the verdict, but am I the only one who finds the idea of a 17 year old being in possession of an assault rifle and a handgun extremely concerning?

He didn't have a handgun as far as I know but did have an AR15 rifle. Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and therefore legally unable to possess a handgun, but under Wisconsin law was legally able to possess a rifle providing it met some length requirements. 

 

I agree by the way, it is absurd. I find the very idea of guns mental to begin with but the fact that it's legal across the US not just to own one but, in some states, to openly carry one, is almost unbelievable to me. But it's a big part of American culture and the 2nd amendment is taken very seriously. And the rationale behind the amendment is reasonably persuasive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MarshallForEngland

Guest MarshallForEngland

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

The trial was a farce, and the prosecutor was fvcking useless.

 

It was over once he brought up Rittenhouse’s love of Call Of Duty.  

Absolutely. The defence wasn't great either, some baffling tactical decisions. I think the facts were so on their side, and the prosecution so awful, that it would have taken an enormous balls-up from the defence to not get full acquittals or a mistrial with prejudice. 

Edited by MarshallForEngland
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doverfox

doverfox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

America’s fvcking broken. The constitution is bollocks. And now he’s going to become a political poster child for the whackos. In their eyes he’s a hero, and it’s absolutely fvcked.

 

I dislike this country, but at least our teenagers aren’t out with weapons intended for war, killing people. 

The constitution is bollocks? we should get rid of the freedom of speech for those i dont agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCFCCHRIS

LCFCCHRIS

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

Imagine if kyle was black. All hearsay but something tells me it wouldnt be the same outcome. 

 

As a note, I am not saying he should or shouldn't have been guilty etc

Dangerous territory, as you said, it would be hearsay. I think with the same jury, it would have been the same verdict. It's good to point out racism when it's there but to point it out in the absence of evidence is damaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, doverfox said:

The constitution is bollocks? we should get rid of the freedom of speech for those i dont agree with. 

Ah yes, the old “freedom” buzzword.

 

One point to you.

 

“Freedom” is a fvcking fallacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59352228

 

More on the above.

 

Disappointing, but not exactly unexpected when the prosecution messed things up so badly, so I can see why the jury made the decision they did and you do have to be sure before you convict someone.

 

"Mr Rittenhouse's defence attorney Mark Richards said his client "wished none of this would have ever happened" and just wanted to get on with his life."

 

Sadly for Mr Rittenhouse, I doubt that last part will be possible, maybe ever, because I don't think everyone will be as forgiving or as accepting of the verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Dangerous territory, as you said, it would be hearsay. I think with the same jury, it would have been the same verdict. It's good to point out racism when it's there but to point it out in the absence of evidence is damaging.

May I ask why? There's reasonably conclusive evidence that shows the justice system in parts of the US treats people differently based on both wealth and skin colour, from cops to prosecutors to judges - despite the claim of "equality under the law".

 

That's why this whole mess came about in the first place, after all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

He didn't have a handgun as far as I know but did have an AR15 rifle. Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and therefore legally unable to possess a handgun, but under Wisconsin law was legally able to possess a rifle providing it met some length requirements. 

 

I agree by the way, it is absurd. I find the very idea of guns mental to begin with but the fact that it's legal across the US not just to own one but, in some states, to openly carry one, is almost unbelievable to me. But it's a big part of American culture and the 2nd amendment is taken very seriously. And the rationale behind the amendment is reasonably persuasive. 

On this we agree.

 

But perhaps it might be time for it to...you know, not be so persuasive?

 

Of course, sorting out the firearm problem in the US would be incredibly impractical given the sheer number of them in circulation and the prodigious border space they have through which more might be sourced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotch

Scotch

Posted
Posted

The thing for me, particularly about the AR rifles is this.

 

I saw one of those constitution audit videos online and the guy was walking down the street with one of these monster rifles on his back. A policeman shows up and is to his credit very respectful and aware of their rights but the thing that stands out to me is that they aren't even obliged to identify themselves or even prove that they have the right to own or open carry said weapon. 

 

How da fuch are the police supposed to do their job if someone with ill intentions (and these ones luckily didnt) can simply walk past them with a weapon of war and they are powerless to do anything? There is litteraly nothing they can do but wait for the perp to start firing and by that time it's too late. 

 

I tried discussing this with some Americans online but it's pointless. They are so afraid of losing their rights to carry such guns that they don't see that it's almost impossible to police... ESPECIALLY when you have 17 year olds walking around with them. SEVENTEEN!! I wasn't responsible enough to tie my own shoes at that age, I tucked the laces in and they are over there with semi automatic rifles.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Scotch said:

The thing for me, particularly about the AR rifles is this.

 

I saw one of those constitution audit videos online and the guy was walking down the street with one of these monster rifles on his back. A policeman shows up and is to his credit very respectful and aware of their rights but the thing that stands out to me is that they aren't even obliged to identify themselves or even prove that they have the right to own or open carry said weapon. 

 

How da fuch are the police supposed to do their job if someone with ill intentions (and these ones luckily didnt) can simply walk past them with a weapon of war and they are powerless to do anything? There is litteraly nothing they can do but wait for the perp to start firing and by that time it's too late. 

 

I tried discussing this with some Americans online but it's pointless. They are so afraid of losing their rights to carry such guns that they don't see that it's almost impossible to police... ESPECIALLY when you have 17 year olds walking around with them. SEVENTEEN!! I wasn't responsible enough to tie my own shoes at that age, I tucked the laces in and they are over there with semi automatic rifles.... 

In the US, you can legally enlist in the Army and kill people with military grade weapons 5 years before (in some parts) you're legally allowed to consume alcohol.

 

Gun culture and the idea of macho individualism is just ingrained into the national psyche there, for better and for (much) worse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doverfox

doverfox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RoboFox said:

Ah yes, the old “freedom” buzzword.

 

One point to you.

 

“Freedom” is a fvcking fallacy. 

Massive illusion we are all wage slaves, to a certain extent. But with out arm the Usa could still just be an English colony. I am sure i heard that Japan had no intention before or after Pearl harbour of attempting to invade the USA because of the number of privately held gins but they have been NRA spin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...