>>10590162 (lb)

I really really hate doing this, but just because the moron is a flaming tranny, it doesn't invalidate the post in its entirety. As a matter of fact, it's a well-researched post.

Let's break it down one last fucking time so that maybe some of you can understand how 2 wrongs don't make a right:

https://twitter.com/VariJStylez/status/1298998779861848064

-If Rittenhouse didn't have a FOID card (state law in IL; minimum age of 18 years old), then he was in possession of a firearm, illegally. Whoever gave him that weapon, also committed a crime. If he took the weapon without permission, then technically, he stole it.

-If point above is true, then point 2 is also true. Again, technically, trafficking a weapon that he either obtained illegally, or possibly borrowed (stole).

-Point number 3 is debatable, and where everyone gets hot about it. Had Rittenhouse stayed on the property he didn't even own or none of his family owns in order to defend it, he might have gotten away with popping a few antifa perps off with no charges. However, what he actually did was put himself in a dangerous situation, knowing there was a very good chance that a conflict was going to happen. This is the part where the "2 wrongs don't make a right" comes into play, and everyone loses their shit because a lot of you anons seem to think that in a "lawless zone" (as was Kenosha at the time), no one is bound by law; except when you try to make a point for your 2A chest-pounding.

I honestly would have expected a lot more from anons, but it is what it is. You guys were handed a rusty, crusty, moldy, diseased torch from Alex Jones and his cronies, and you held it as high as possible, and ran with it.

-The last point is something nobody talks about. If the kid didn't comply with officer/deputy orders, he was putting them in danger, too. For a really crafty prosecutor, there's a reckless endangerment of a police officer charge in there, somewhere.

But alas, anons are getting caught up in drama within drama. Nobody seems to think it's perfectly valid to say that the kid:

1. Shouldn't have even BEEN there.

2. Wasn't under adult supervision with a firearm in his possession.

3. Committed several crimes himself in doing what he was doing.

>>10590364

You aren't, but there is a lot of confusion in the room, lol.

>>10590375

>When will they change the rule back?

When we have an actual super majority. Believe me, that's the goal, and the reason we're waiting until the election to get anything done.

>>10590308

>All I’m saying is think logically.

Agreed.

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 28b403 No.4400956 📁

Dec 20 2018 21:02:56 (EST)

Rogers departure. Intel.

Sessions departure. Law.

Kelly departure. Warfare/MIL

Mattis departure. Warfare/MIL

Notice a pattern?

Q

>>10590338

1. She's not French.

2. She doesn't appear to be a she.

>>10590892

>Most people think Jim Watkins is Q.

This is the current circulated theory all over reddit, and mostly it's Hotwheels behind pushing it. Something about IP addresses and confirmation biases and shiet.

>>10590986

Well, considering it's reddit which a significant number of people turn to for all their daily dose of informative confirmation biases, that's sort of a big deal.

If they could arrest spez for something dastardly and post the charges for all to see, that MIGHT have an impact, but until then, reddit's the shit for a lot of internet users.

Just saying.