Columns

The Rittenhouse Testimony From a Gun Owner's Angle

Mark Hertzberg/Pool Photo via AP

If you’re watching the Rittenhouse trial, and you’re a gun owner, you are probably pulling your hair out every time the lefty prosecutor opens his annoying, 2nd Amendment-hating avocado toast hole. Let’s take this commie “gunphobe” apart (verbally, lest this article be used against me in a courtroom, as we will see happened to Kyle Rittenhouse).

Back Story

A man criminal named Jacob Blake sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend. When the police attempted to arrest him, he resisted and eventually went to his car to get a knife. The cops rightfully ventilated Blake seven times. He survived. Kamala Harris told Blake she was “proud of him.” Whether she is proud of the sexual assault, the resisting, or the fact he went to get a knife to stab a cop, we will never know. Either way, she is a lizard person and I hope she steps on a Lego*.

The prosecutor kept pushing Rittenhouse to admit he intended to kill the people stomping him. Rittenhouse wisely and accurately kept saying his goal was to stop the threat. Rittenhouse at no time pumped a coup de grace into his attackers. He didn’t throw playing cards on the bodies ala Lt. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. We all know the drill — we shoot to stop the threat, which Rittenhouse did. Whether that means one shot or seven, which Jacob Blake took and survived, can only be determined as the situation unfolds.

The prosecutor also asked Rittenhouse if he would shoot someone for burning a car, looting a store, breaking a window, etc. He goes on and on with potential crimes as if Rittenhouse is going to eventually take the bait and yell, “Yes, I’d shoot someone stealing pool noodles!”

At one point, the prosecutor grilled Rittenhouse about ballistics, specifically the .223 full metal jacket (FMJ) rounds he was using the night of the shootings. Rittenhouse admits he doesn’t know a lot about bullets. We all know FMJ rounds are not the first choice for self-defense. The prosecutor declares the hollow points do more damage to a target but then goes on to say FMJ rounds were specifically made to go through the target, in this case, people. Am I wrong or was he suggesting the round was made to hit multiple people, and Kyle, whom he suggests showed up that night to “kill people,” was hell-bent on slaughtering rioters, even those behind his targets?

There are a ton of gun-loving YouTubers, people I’m guessing have way more ballistic knowledge than the prosecutor, who would disagree with him when it comes to “over penetration” of rounds.

Here is a video of various .223 rounds and how they penetrate. You’ll see the FMJ doesn’t do what the moronic prosecutor asserts. If Rittenhouse wanted to incur damage, he would have gone out of his way to find hollow points.

 

Does this clown attorney not realize ammo was hard to find last year? Maybe that’s all they could come up with. Also, Rittenhouse testified he didn’t even buy the ammo.

The prosecutor attacks Rittenhouse for shooting an “unarmed” man using “just a foot” who was kicking him. And later for shooting a man who walloped Rittenhouse with a skateboard. Apparently, the guntard prosecutor doesn’t know that more people are killed every year by feet and fists and blunt objects than by all rifles combined, even the big, bad, scary, assault semi-automatic rifle Rittenhouse used to defend himself. If you don’t believe me, ask the FBI.

The Bozo prosecutor asked Rittenhouse why he didn’t put his rifle down to fight a fire. Simple: you don’t put a loaded weapon down in a riot, you jackpudding. I was hoping this was the attorney’s first day on the job and he couldn’t possibly be this inept, but apparently he’s been there for years.

He also badgered Rittenhouse about buying a sling. Why would someone need a sling? Again, you don’t put a gun on the ground in a riot. This lawyer is clearly fishing and using bubble gum as bait. He struck out more than Andrew Cuomo with the women on his staff.

The lawyer attempted to prove Kyle Rittenhouse is an irresponsible gun owner, intent on slaughtering looters. He failed.

My favorite part is when the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse why he shot the guy kicking him. Rittenhouse responded, “Because he was stomping me, kicking my face.” Isn’t that what we call “checkmate?”

In a last-ditch effort to crucify Rittenhouse, the lawyer brought up a social media post where Kyle, though unarmed, said he wished he could shoot looters. Who hasn’t said that? Many of us thought and said that as we watched Antifa and BLM peacefully burn our country to the ground. It doesn’t mean we would DO it.

*I guess I should do some social media clean-up, in case. From now on, when I’m mad at a lizard person, I’ll just say, “I hope So-and-so steps on a Lego.”

There is more on trial here than 18-year-old Rittenhouse’s life. The left can’t stand that a 17-year-old perforated three of their Antifa thugs, never mind that they all have a history of violent crimes, including pedophilia. They hate that a young man stood up to them as they burned and looted another American town. Thugs don’t like competition; they want to riot with impunity. Also, if Kyle walks, they might see even more patriotic Americans standing up to the real fascists ruining our country.

RELATED: ‘Don’t Get Brazen With Me!’: Judge in Rittenhouse Trial Unleashes His Wrath on Prosecutor

Don’t let Big Tech and their commie overlords shut down conservative news like PJ Media!

Fight back! Become a VIP member today!

You get 40% off THIS WEEK ONLY when you become a VIP member. Click here for the discount! Use Promo code 2022!  Fight BACK! Keep REAL, conservative news alive!