Kenosha Call of Duty pmags 15.99USD each

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThatM305Guy said:
If Britain had just stayed home and let Germany bomb Poland, oops I mean Holland, oops I mean Belgium, oops, I mean France, oops I mean Britain, then maybe they wouldn't have been attacked.
Click to expand...

Your comparison is way off. Maybe if the BLM movement was raiding people's houses, dragging people out of their homes and executing them, firebombing entire neighborhoods, drive by shootings and mass murder by the BLM protestors. Then yes your comparison would be accurate. Until then it's exaggerated.

And for the people saying "he's too young to do what he did," and those of you comparing him to a 17 your old soldier (our grandfather's) going off to fight the Nazis for freedom were old enough. Well those were 17 year olds trained by professionals before being sent off. So let's not exaggerate this.

Kid defended himself, yes. Were these guys trying to uprehend him for the first shooting, thinking he was the bad guy? Who knows. Kid left the house illegally caring a rifle. That's the big problem. Then the shooting is another. He did good, he did wrong also. Just a bad situation. Kid better thank god this was all caught on tape from the multiple locations. That's the only thing that will save his ass. It's what made this a massive political and nationwide case that will make it in his favor possibly. Without the tapes it would just be a shooting, he would be charged and that would be the end of it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with many here that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not because he was out "looking for trouble" but I see the timeline as:

1. incident where police shoot a person
2. riots ensue
3. a 17 year-old goes out to "protect" and ends up shooting 3 people

So what confuses me is if the police were doing their job during the initial shooting incident, and this 17 year-old supports them, then why not let them do their job and let them (the police) keep the streets safe, no matter what is going on, i.e. rioting?
You don't really support someone or a group of people, when you disregard their advice (stay home) and try and do their jobs for them, in the manner you see fit.

Now if he was at home, defending his family and property, it would be a different discussion.
 
Rich the Butcher said:
I agree with many here that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not because he was out "looking for trouble" but I see the timeline as:

1. incident where police shoot a person
2. riots ensue
3. a 17 year-old goes out to "protect" and ends up shooting 3 people

So what confuses me is if the police were doing their job during the initial shooting incident, and this 17 year-old supports them, then why not let them do their job and let them (the police) keep the streets safe, no matter what is going on, i.e. rioting?
You don't really support someone or a group of people, when you disregard their advice (stay home) and try and do their jobs for them, in the manner you see fit.

Now if he was at home, defending his family and property, it would be a different discussion.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that local police are not allowed to do their job!
I think that the logical solution is very simple:
* sanction elected officials ordering police officers to stop enforcing law and order
* sanction any police officer not doing his job
* higher level of government needs to step him and take over

This means that:
1) if a city's elected officials don't do their job, the state government should intervene
2) if the elected state officials are not doing their job, the federal government should intervene
3) if the elected federal officials are not doing their job, only then should armed citizens consider intervening

I don't want unsupervised 17 year olds taking life and death decisions on the streets!
 
AlexF said:
The real problem is that local police are not allowed to do their job!
I think that the logical solution is very simple:
* sanction elected officials ordering police officers to stop enforcing law and order
* sanction any police officer not doing his job
* higher level of government needs to step him and take over

This means that:
1) if a city's elected officials don't do their job, the state government should intervene
2) if the elected state officials are not doing their job, the federal government should intervene
3) if the elected federal officials are not doing their job, only then should armed citizens consider intervening

I don't want unsupervised 17 year olds taking life and death decisions on the streets!
Click to expand...
Great points. Give the police the tools, and resources they need to do their jobs.
 
mcorbei3 said:
Great points. Give the police the tools, and resources they need to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

But there is no guarantee that he would have stayed home. None of us were in his "head" to know what his rationale was, so even if the police were given the tools and resources, what stops someone from thinking it's not enough and they need to take matters into their own hands, and make public safety decisions?
 
jonny360 said:
Your comparison is way off. Maybe if the BLM movement was raiding people's houses Neighborhoods?, dragging people out of their homes cars? and executing them beating them to death/executing at point blank range with a handgun?, firebombing entire neighborhoods this literally happening..., drive by shootings and mass murder by the BLM protestors. Then yes your comparison would be accurate. Until then it's exaggerated.

And for the people saying "he's too young to do what he did," and those of you comparing him to a 17 your old soldier (our grandfather's) going off to fight the Nazis for freedom were old enough. Well those were 17 year olds trained by professionals before being sent off. So let's not exaggerate this.

Kid defended himself, yes. Were these guys trying to uprehend him for the first shooting, thinking he was the bad guy? Who knows. Kid left the house illegally caring a rifle. That's the big problem. Then the shooting is another. He did good, he did wrong also. Just a bad situation. Kid better thank god this was all caught on tape from the multiple locations. That's the only thing that will save his ass. It's what made this a massive political and nationwide case that will make it in his favor possibly. Without the tapes it would just be a shooting, he would be charged and that would be the end of it.
Click to expand...

Jonny, I dont intend this to be snarky, or disrespectful, but almost every example you listed was directly analogous, and reinforced my point.

In the broader scope of my comparison, the point is that, short of them completely destroying the system and replacing it in their own image, these people will not stop. Unless someone stands up and says, "NO." It will continue.

Make no mistake. Kyle was not attacked because he was carrying a rifle. He was attacked because he was standing between the rioters, and their target for destruction. Between peace, and chaos. He was attacked because he said NO.
 
Last edited:
AlexF said:
The real problem is that local police are not allowed to do their job!
I think that the logical solution is very simple:
* sanction elected officials ordering police officers to stop enforcing law and order
* sanction any police officer not doing his job
* higher level of government needs to step him and take over

This means that:
1) if a city's elected officials don't do their job, the state government should intervene
2) if the elected state officials are not doing their job, the federal government should intervene
3) if the elected federal officials are not doing their job, only then should armed citizens consider intervening

I don't want unsupervised 17 year olds taking life and death decisions on the streets!
Click to expand...

Just to play Devils advocate, let's look at that from a Canadian perspective:
The federal government bans our legal guns. Local police don't enforce confiscation from legal gun owners. The Provincial police don't enforce confiscation from legal gun owners...now should the federal government have the right to have the RCMP enforce a nationwide confiscation? What if the federal government dumps a ****ton of money to provide the RCMP with the resources to achieve this goal? Now we have well funded federal enforcement, ready to do their "job".
 
joey.45 said:
If no one brought guns in the first place then this level of violence may not of happened. A gun is a tool. And the old saying goes that if you have a tool you will use it. Leave your tool in the safe until range day. Don't bring it to a protest that's highly charged and emotional. You're gonna use it and people are going to be maimed or killed. And people or going to spend most of the rest of their life in a jail cell. There's no call of duty here . Just mass stupid.
Click to expand...


Instead the criminal with the skateboard or the other criminal with his illegal handgun would have killed Kyle.

No....Kyle has the right to do what he did and defend himself from those domestic terrorists / criminals that were trying to burn down the city.

Antifa / BLM (burn loot murder) are the criminals here. Not Kyle. Get it straight.
 
Rich the Butcher said:
I agree with many here that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not because he was out "looking for trouble" but I see the timeline as:

1. incident where police shoot a person
2. riots ensue
3. a 17 year-old goes out to "protect" and ends up shooting 3 people

So what confuses me is if the police were doing their job during the initial shooting incident, and this 17 year-old supports them, then why not let them do their job and let them (the police) keep the streets safe, no matter what is going on, i.e. rioting?
You don't really support someone or a group of people, when you disregard their advice (stay home) and try and do their jobs for them, in the manner you see fit.

Now if he was at home, defending his family and property, it would be a different discussion.
Click to expand...



You need more research on what happened. The majority of the police were supposedly protecting the police station so it did not get burned down like all the businesses. There were a limited number of police left to deal with the domestic terrorist looters.
 
Kyle along with several others were asked by a business owners to provide security to their business's which scumbags tried to burn down. A Molotov cocktail was thrown at Kyle and a Glock pointed at him for which he defended himself.
 
jonny360 said:
Your comparison is way off. Maybe if the BLM movement was raiding people's houses, dragging people out of their homes and executing them, firebombing entire neighborhoods, drive by shootings and mass murder by the BLM protestors. Then yes your comparison would be accurate. Until then it's exaggerated.

And for the people saying "he's too young to do what he did," and those of you comparing him to a 17 your old soldier (our grandfather's) going off to fight the Nazis for freedom were old enough. Well those were 17 year olds trained by professionals before being sent off. So let's not exaggerate this.

Kid defended himself, yes. Were these guys trying to uprehend him for the first shooting, thinking he was the bad guy? Who knows. Kid left the house illegally caring a rifle. That's the big problem. Then the shooting is another. He did good, he did wrong also. Just a bad situation. Kid better thank god this was all caught on tape from the multiple locations. That's the only thing that will save his ass. It's what made this a massive political and nationwide case that will make it in his favor possibly. Without the tapes it would just be a shooting, he would be charged and that would be the end of it.
Click to expand...
The idea that ww1&2 soldiers were trained professionals when they went to war is absurd. They were fresh faced kidts with 8 weeks of trainiing thrown into a bloody war to sink or swim. Hell, early on in both wars soldiers were trained without guns because there weren’t enough military weapons made yet, they were all needed on the lines. So no, you would be completely wrong. And as s soldier who has been on a two way range, nothing but war makes you a professional at war.
 
VinnyQC said:
Actually he should have shot first. Just shows that good guy with a gun can't do squat to bad guy with a gun if he gets shot first.
Click to expand...

Doesn't get and dumber than this LOL

The felon with a weapons prohibition is the "good guy". People like this is why we are where we are right now a country

Shawn
 
mistero said:
What's really astounding is gofundme and fundly removing crowd-funding campaigns. You will not find a single one on gfm to help Kyle.

http s://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/27/kyle-rittenhouse-gofundme-campaigns-removed/

But if you search for Kyle Rittenhouse, this garbage comes up:
http s://www.gofundme.com/f/protect-dc-area-protestors"]http s://www.gofundme.com/f/protect-dc-area-protestors

If you want to report it you will see this posted:





So, it doesnt matter what protestors are doing and only gfm can disagree with the nature of a campaign.

On a bright side, one platform is actually doing what it is suppose to do: http s://www.givesendgo.com/GUCZ
They have already raises close to half a million dollars.
Click to expand...

This is the official funding option from his legal team

https://fightback.law/

Shawn
 
Anyone in the Regina Area want to go-in with me on an order ?

There is a flat fee of $25 for Export Charge ....

So ordering 1 mag would be close to $42 USD.... obviviously, the more ordered the cheaper per mag.

PM me by 10:00 pm tonight if you are interested in sharing an order !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom