Anonymous #1 2w

Yes. Doesn’t mean we can’t judge his actions or say he objectively killed two people. And it doesn’t mean we have to treat him like he did something worth celebrating as if that’s the only possible alternative to criminal

1

Anonymous OP 2w

And the charges for illegal possession of a firearm were dropped because it was legal for him to possess the firearm. It’s important to keep the fact straight

1

Anonymous #1 2w

He was allowed to possess it, he was not allowed to purchase it. And that’s what I said

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Reading is important

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Why would it matter in the slightest if he wasn’t allowed to purchase it?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Both were within their rights, neither should be called a terrorist

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Well it’s a pretty big gun for a 17 year old to have, especially with no parental supervision. I think people are allowed to have their opinions about whether high school kids should be able to get their hands on semi-automatic rifles so easily

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Alright, well I’m just pointing out that I think Kyle Rittenhouse arguably did a lot more in the way of “looking for trouble” by going out of his way to an area where there’s ongoing riots brandishing the most powerful gun a 17 year old could get his hands on, vs. a CC permit holder carrying his pistol around and effectively being ambushed by ICE officers who then freaked out and killed him simply for having it

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You do realize plenty of soldiers who are his age and some younger have used bigger guns right?

1