These Guys Need To Come Up With A Special Rittenhouse Edition

13 Comments on These Guys Need To Come Up With A Special Rittenhouse Edition

1. Cool!

   6

2. Dr. Tar

   Question, Do you live in Wisconsin? For some reason I was under that impression.

   Yes, Brad, but way across the state from Kenosha. – Dr. Tar

   2

3. It’s a variation of a ‘single point’ sling. Mostly useful for weapon retention, banging it all over your body if you have to run, and useless to increase accuracy from any firing position.

   But it’s cool looking, isn’t it?

   Rifles with slings attached forward of the left hand grip and at the rear of the butt stock can be used to ‘build a position’ in several shooting stances. Takes training and practice. Do it right and it makes the difference between a hit and a miss past a couple of hundred meters.

   But screw all that. Lots better to look high speed/low drag cool.

   5

4. You’ll put your eye out kid.

   7

5. I still think the Kyle Rittenhouse FPS videogame would be a best seller.

   2

6. Dr. Tar,
   Attended my ccw renewal class with my go to guy. A now retired Sacramento County Deputy. Knows his shit. Been involved in three shoots. More importantly Pro Gun. Most state Penal Codes are very close to resembling each other. So here’s the deal. I’ve posted here several times that there’s a Penal Code in California that states “If a riot occurs and state, county, or city law enforcement can’t protect the citizens, the taking of life is acceptable to stop (Squelch) the riot. The reason why the roof top Koreans were never charged in Cali was penal code 197.4. Try and find it on a google search. It’s been erased fro the intraweb. Meaning Google doesn’t want you to know any of this so they hide it. Cutting to the chase, there’s about a 99.9% CHANCE Wisconsin has a similar Penal Code. There’s no chance of finding that Wisconsin penal code on the webb. If you now any Wisconsin LE or County or State employees please ask the question.
   California Penal Code 197 part 4.

   https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/197.html

   Dang hard to find because Nazis don’t want to know you can eventually shoot them on site.
   Anyway, Pretty sure a similar clause exists in Wisco law. If you have a LE or DA source might be interesting to see what they say.
   keep the faith bro.
   If you have such a contact please report back.

   2

7. @Brad — Very interesting, that 197.4. Now I’m going to have to dig through FL statutes for anything similar.

   On an entirely different subject, earlier today I saw this YT of precision metalworking and thought of you.
   https://youtu.be/pbuAt8L_Uhc?t=216

   3

8. Dr. Tar. Should have added, such a law would immediately render Kyle innocent. Go figure.

   1

9. It looks like Florida statute WILL allow threat or use of deadly force in defense of property in some circumstances.

   First, a key definition:

   𝟕𝟕𝟔.𝟎𝟖 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐲.—
   “Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; 𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏; kidnapping; 𝒂𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒕; 𝒂𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒚; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒇𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒚 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒉𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒖𝒂𝒍.

   𝟕𝟕𝟔.𝟎𝟏𝟑 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
   (1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
   …
   (b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another 𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒇𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒚.
   …
   𝟕𝟕𝟔.𝟎𝟑𝟏 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲.—
   …
   (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒇𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒚. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

   1

10. ” Very interesting, that 197.4. Now I’m going to have to dig through FL statutes for anything similar.”
    Please do. Little know fact. California by default is a stand your ground state. You have no duty to retreat.

    There’s some huge shit going on right now in SCOTUS. And it looks like we are winning this battle. No more interpretation of the second. Apply it like the founders meant. Good stuff.

    2

11. search of Kali penal code 197 … as Brad mentioned, very ‘light’
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=197.&nodeTreePath=4.7.1&lawCode=PEN
    https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/justifiable-homicide/
    (can’t find a date on this one, but the relevant code is 197.2.1 (self-defense)

12. My point is with that Cali Penal Code. It exist verbatim in most states. But the Libtards did not try and change it, they and the media hid it. Just sayen.

13. PS, I could not have found PS 197.4 today had not my CCW guy would have not mentioned it. It’s scrubbed.