What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Kyle Rittenhouse an Andrew Yang supporter? (1 Viewer)

squistion said:
Yes, they reached an agreement probably because his legal team realized he was not going to get back that gun back for a while, as a friend bought it for him illegally (because he couldn't) and the registration was still in his friend's name, not Kyle Rittenhouse.
Click to expand...


Kyle owned the gun.  It was bought legally.  All charges relating to the purchase and possession were dropped.  No one was disputing the ownership.  Kyle received zero consessions from the state and had no reason to take the deal except that the deal was mutually agreeable.  If Kyle had any desire for the gun, there was zero downside in letting the court decide.   Your arguement has zero merit and just exposes how pathetic it is to engage. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Kyle owned the gun.  It was bought legally.  All charges relating to the purchase and possession were dropped.  No one was disputing the ownership.  Kyle received zero consessions from the state and had no reason to take the deal except that the deal was mutually agreeable.  If Kyle had any desire for the gun, there was zero downside in letting the court decide.   Your arguement has zero merit and just exposes how pathetic it is to engage. 
Click to expand...


Nope he didn't own the gun.

Yes, it was bought legally by his friend at the time of purchase, but it was in his friend's name. It was never registered to Kyle Rittenhouse and as far as I know, the owner of record in the state of Wisconsin is still his friend who purchased it for him.

Because of the above, he just couldn't say to the police, "I want my gun back" because they would have required proof he was the actual owner, which he couldn't provide unless steps had been taken to make a legal transfer under Wisconsin law (which to my knowledge was not done, although it certainly could have been, but which might have resulted in a lengthy delay and some bad publicity for Kyle).

Edited to add:

Yes, the possession charges against Rittenhouse were dropped by the judge, but the charges against his friend who purchased the weapon were never dropped and reportedly a plea deal has been worked out. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Kyle owned the gun.  It was bought legally.  All charges relating to the purchase and possession were dropped.  No one was disputing the ownership.  Kyle received zero consessions from the state and had no reason to take the deal except that the deal was mutually agreeable.  If Kyle had any desire for the gun, there was zero downside in letting the court decide.   Your arguement has zero merit and just exposes how pathetic it is to engage. 
Click to expand...


The dude is LITERALLY making stuff up as he goes along.  :doh:

It's like he can't ever face the truth.  Well, I suppose we've all known that for a long time now.

 
squistion said:
Nope he didn't own the gun.

Yes, it was bought legally by his friend at the time of purchase, but it was in his friend's name. It was never registered to Kyle Rittenhouse and as far as I know, the owner of record in the state of Wisconsin is still his friend who purchased it for him.

Because of the above, he just couldn't say to the police, "I want my gun back" because they would have required proof he was the actual owner, which he couldn't provide unless steps had been taken to make a legal transfer under Wisconsin law (which to my knowledge was not done, although it certainly could have been, but which might have resulted in a lengthy delay and some bad publicity for Kyle).

Edited to add:

Yes, the possession charges against Rittenhouse were dropped by the judge, but the charges against his friend who purchased the weapon were never dropped and reportedly a plea deal has been worked out. 
Click to expand...
You are correct. Registration of the gun was never transferred to Rittenhouse. But, then again, Wisconsin does not require gun registration. 

 
squistion said:
Which doesn't make it Kyle's gun legally under Wisconsin law in a normal world, absent record of a transfer (which I have seen no evidence of). 

Bottom line - Kyle could not demand return of a gun he legally has never owned. 
Click to expand...
Record of transfer or registration of a gun is not required in Wisconsin. So if you truly were searching for a record of transfer you would have discovered that.

Now, can you quit trying to distract from the fun fact you were WRONG in your assumption that Rittenhouse would try to profit from the shootings and just admit you were wrong?

 
squistion said:
From your quote:

Wisconsin does not require gun registration. 
Click to expand...
WHAT?!!

If I own a gun in Wisconsin I am not required to register it. How in God's name does that make it illegal to own?

At this point the only conclusion anyone can draw here is that you are trolling. 

 
KingPrawn said:
WHAT?!!

If I own a gun in Wisconsin I am not required to register it. How in God's name does that make it illegal to own?

At this point the only conclusion anyone can draw here is that you are trolling. 
Click to expand...


According to Squis logic, if your mom picks up a can of beans at the supermarket and gives them to you it's really not yours.  :doh:

But if you REGISTER that can of beans with the state, then that's different.   Or we need a hearing from a judge to determine if that can of beans was yours.

 
KingPrawn said:
WHAT?!!

If I own a gun in Wisconsin I am not required to register it. How in God's name does that make it illegal to own?

At this point the only conclusion anyone can draw here is that you are trolling. 
Click to expand...


:shrug:

19 minutes ago, KingPrawn said:

You are correct. Registration of the gun was never transferred to Rittenhouse. But, then again, Wisconsin does not require gun registration. 
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me break this down for you. Its not that difficult. 

You can search all you want for transfer of the gun registration. You won't find it. That's because 1) Rittenhouse's friend did not have to register it under Wisconsin law in the first place. And 2) he can give or sell the gun to Rittenhouse without any paperwork required and 3) Rittenhouse would not be required to register the gun under Wisconsin law either.

 
KingPrawn said:
Let me break this down for you. Its not that difficult. 

You can search all you want for transfer of the gun registration. You won't find it. That's because 1) Rittenhouse's friend did not have to register it under Wisconsin law in the first place. And 2) he can give or sell the gun to Rittenhouse without any paperwork required and 3) Rittenhouse would not be required to register the gun under Wisconsin law either.
Click to expand...


I still don't think he's going to understand.  You didn't write that out in crayon. :shrug:

 
squistion said:
That was unkind. Be better.
Click to expand...


Seriously, it's literally been explained to you at least 50 times on how this all works.  Things you SHOULD know as a functioning adult in society and yet you continue to make stuff up and act as if THAT is fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what would make this thread better?

1. Quit polluting it with information about ownership of the gun that a) is incorrect and b) is irrelevant.

2. And then an apology for polluting the thread and an admission that the assumption of Kyle Rittenhouse was looking to profit off the sale of the gun was just flat out wrong. 

But the pollution was just a pathetic attempt to distract from the wrong assumption.

 
squistion said:
Yes, they reached an agreement probably because his legal team realized he was not going to get that gun back for a while, as a friend bought it for him illegally (because he couldn't) and the registration was still in his friend's name, not Kyle Rittenhouse.

If you buy a gun for me, registered in your name, then give it to me but keep it registered to you, that doesn't legally make it my gun. And if I commit a crime with it, even if I am acquitted that doesn't change the legal ownership of the gun, it is still legally yours. I am sure there are steps to legally transfer gun ownership in Wisconsin from one person to another, but to my knowledge wasn't done here, so this legally was still not Kyle's gun. 
Click to expand...
Do you have a factual basis for the bolded?  Subsequent posts suggest that there is no registration in Wisconsin. 

Also, if Rittenhouse’s friend was the legal owner of the gun as you suggest, why would Wisconsin authorities be negotiating an agreement with Rittenhouse to destroy the gun?  Shouldn’t they have been reaching that agreement with the gun’s rightful owner?

This is all beside the point anyway. You called Rittenhouse a lowlife because in your opinion he was lying and really wanted to sell the gun for profit. Regarding that speculative assertion, you adopted a we’ll see what happens approach. Well, what happened is that Rittenhouse reached an agreement with authorities to have the weapon destroyed, just like he said he wanted.

 
BladeRunner said:
Maybe a little humiliation will bring you to your senses.  :shrug:

Seriously, it's literally been explained to you at least 50 times on how this all works.  Things you SHOULD know as a functioning adult in society and yet you continue to make stuff up and act as if THAT is fact.
Click to expand...


Keep those cards and letters coming!

 
bigbottom said:
Do you have a factual basis for the bolded?  Subsequent posts suggest that there is no registration in Wisconsin. 
Click to expand...
A simple Google search of Wisconsin gun laws bears this out. And if squistion actually did a search for the transfer of registration as claimed I suspect he knew this all along. His silence regarding this in his last couple of posts is telling as well.

 
bigbottom said:
Do you have a factual basis for the bolded?  Subsequent posts suggest that there is no registration in Wisconsin. 

Also, if Rittenhouse’s friend was the legal owner of the gun as you suggest, why would Wisconsin authorities be negotiating an agreement with Rittenhouse to destroy the gun?  Shouldn’t they have been reaching that agreement with the gun’s rightful owner?

This is all beside the point anyway. You called Rittenhouse a lowlife because in your opinion he was lying and really wanted to sell the gun for profit. Regarding that speculative assertion, you adopted a we’ll see what happens approach. Well, what happened is that Rittenhouse reached an agreement with authorities to have the weapon destroyed, just like he said he wanted.
Click to expand...
I am from Wisconsin. I am a licensed concealed carry holder and I also have several other pistols, shotguns and rifles.

There is no registration in the state of Wisconsin....Period.  there never has been any registration and there is no upcoming legislation to implement firearm registration in the state of Wisconsin

The only thing you have to do to acquire a firearm in the state of Wisconsin is pass a background check. That takes 10 minutes if all goes well. 

That background check is the only difference between buying a firearm and a can of beans at the store.  That's it.

What squis is saying is an outright fabrication.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
I am from Wisconsin. I am a licensed concealed carry holder and I also have several other pistols, shotguns and rifles.

There is no registration in the state of Wisconsin....Period.  there never has been any registration and there is no upcoming legislation to implement firearm registration in the state of Wisconsin

The only thing you have to do to acquire a firearm in the state of Wisconsin is pass a background check. That takes 10 minutes if all goes well. 

That background check is the only difference between buying a firearm and a can of beans at the store.  That's it.

What squis is saying is an outright fabrication.
Click to expand...
I would add that a background check isn't required for gun sales/transfers between private citizens.

 
About two years ago my cousin passed away. He was a big hunter and had many guns. His wife had an auction to sell his fishing and hunting gear. The auctioneer had her sell the guns outright at the auction. If he handled the sales he would have to do a background check

 
So enough about wi gun laws and who did or did not own the gun. Do we still feel Rittenhouse is a lowlife for trying to profit by selling the gun? I think I read thats what he was trying to do.

 
KingPrawn said:
So enough about wi gun laws and who did or did not own the gun. Do we still feel Rittenhouse is a lowlife for trying to profit by selling the gun? I think I read thats what he was trying to do.
Click to expand...
I don't really care, to be honest.

The left already tried to ruin his life the least he can do is try to make up by getting as much money as he can.

I mean, people buy and sell Nazi artifacts everyday at auctions. One stupid rifle doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.  And, to be fair, he killed those two morons in self defense anyways.  It's not like he walked into a school and started shooting it up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KingPrawn said:
So enough about wi gun laws and who did or did not own the gun. Do we still feel Rittenhouse is a lowlife for trying to profit by selling the gun? I think I read thats what he was trying to do.
Click to expand...


Kyle from day one said he wanted the gun destroyed.  He stated this numerous times and backed it up with the actions of his attorneys in court.  Squis has lied repeatedly in his hatred of Kyle.  Kyle never made any attempt to profit off the sale of the gun. To say otherwise is a 100 percent made up lie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
Why?  Is BLM fundraising for cases it can't win with lawyers that have proven losing track records?
Click to expand...


Let me highlight what YOU posted:

-fish- said:
Money grab.  Nothing more, nothing less.   Just more grifting.   


Tucker Carlson's viewers sure get fleeced a lot.
Click to expand...


Now do BLM and everyone who donated to them!  :thumbup:

Or are you going to try and move the goalposts again and make excuses?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love poor Kyle now playing the victim.  :violin:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kyle-rittenhouse-tells-fox-news-tucker-carlson-that-he-plans-to-sue-whoopi-goldberg/ar-AAUdqf2?ocid=msedgntp

Kyle Rittenhouse tells Fox News' Tucker Carlson that he plans to sue Whoopi Goldberg

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 19-year-old Illinois teen found not guilty in the deadly shooting of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin said this week that he will be suing individuals and media companies for negative press coverage. 

The announcement came Monday on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" where the teen also shared the launch of his Media Accountability Project, a donation fund to finance his intended lawsuits. Rittenhouse's team is currently considering lawsuits against politicians, athletes, and celebrities whom he claims have spread lies about him. The list includes Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of  "The View" on ABC.  

"She called me a murderer after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers," the teen complained on Carlson's show. "And there's others. Don't forget about Cenk Uygur from 'The Young Turks.' He called me a murderer before the verdict and continues to call me a murderer."

Rittenhouse said he will also be pursuing anyone who has labeled him a white supremacist saying, "They're all going to be held accountable. And we're going to handle them in a courtroom." In August 2020, Rittenhouse fatally shot Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum as well as wounding Gaige Grosskreutz in protests that broke out in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake at the hands of a police officer. The teen was 17 at the time and wielding a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semiautomatic rifle, prompting a national debate on gun control.

 
I would think his legal counsel would takes these cases on contingency, in which case he wouldn’t need a bunch of money to finance the lawsuits. 

 
squistion said:
I love poor Kyle now playing the victim.  :violin:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kyle-rittenhouse-tells-fox-news-tucker-carlson-that-he-plans-to-sue-whoopi-goldberg/ar-AAUdqf2?ocid=msedgntp

Kyle Rittenhouse tells Fox News'


Tucker



Carlson


that he plans to sue Whoopi Goldberg

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 19-year-old Illinois teen found not guilty in the deadly shooting of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin said this week that he will be suing individuals and media companies for negative press coverage. 

The announcement came Monday on Fox News' "


Tucker



Carlson


Tonight" where the teen also shared the launch of his Media Accountability Project, a donation fund to finance his intended lawsuits. Rittenhouse's team is currently considering lawsuits against politicians, athletes, and celebrities whom he claims have spread lies about him. The list includes Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of  "The View" on ABC.  

"She called me a murderer after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers," the teen complained on


Carlson


's show. "And there's others. Don't forget about Cenk Uygur from 'The Young Turks.' He called me a murderer before the verdict and continues to call me a murderer."

Rittenhouse said he will also be pursuing anyone who has labeled him a white supremacist saying, "They're all going to be held accountable. And we're going to handle them in a courtroom."  In August 2020, Rittenhouse fatally shot Anthony Huber and


Joseph


Rosenbaum as well as wounding Gaige Grosskreutz in protests that broke out in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob


Blake


 at the hands of a police officer. The teen was 17 at the time and wielding a 


Smith


& Wesson M&P 15 semiautomatic rifle, prompting a national debate on gun control.
Click to expand...


Wait...wut?  You make no sense.  

 
bigbottom said:
I would think his legal counsel would takes these cases on contingency, in which case he wouldn’t need a bunch of money to finance the lawsuits. 
Click to expand...
lol.  like the lawyers think they're going to win. 

just more grift sponsored by Fox News and Trumpy lawyers.

 
bigbottom said:
I’m not a tort lawyer, but why is the case frivolous?  Is it simply because Rittenhouse is a public figure?
Click to expand...
I read a tweet that said….because factually, he is a murderer….not a convicted murderer….but still a murderer.

Hard to argue against that.

 
eoMMan said:
I read a tweet that said….because factually, he is a murderer….not a convicted murderer….but still a murderer.

Hard to argue against that.
Click to expand...
I can argue against that. Factually he’s a killer. But that’s different than a murderer. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
2K
Prinefan
P
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
2K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top