|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Rittenhouse: ‘I Wasn’t On Trial, the Right of Self-Defense Was On Trial’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Appearing in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Monday evening, 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse—perhaps displaying wisdom beyond his years—told Carlson, “It wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse on trial in Wisconsin, it was the right of self-defense on trial”
Many in the Second Amendment community agree. A recent report at Ammoland News made the same argument. Rittenhouse, found “not guilty” on five charges by a jury of seven women and five men in a Kenosha courtroom, quickly added to Carlson, “If I was convicted, no one would be able, no one would ever be privileged to defend their life against (their) attackers.” |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/29/2021)
|
It was obvious from the beginning that this was classic self defense. This case never should have gone to court.
I wish I had the money that they wasted on this trial. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
