145
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Not really. Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin with his rifle in order to kill two people. He did not travel through Pennsylvania, so this law wouldn't have applied to him.

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 days ago

Pretty sure Kyle traveled without a firearm and had someone of-age purchase him one across state lines.

Here is an article about the guy who purchased him the gun, since Kyle couldn’t legally, taking a plea deal. https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-bought-rifle-kyle-rittenhouse-plea-deal/story?id=82178053

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

All of that happened in Wisconsin. What does it have to do with Pennsylvania?

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 2 days ago

The key context is that this type of law in Wisconsin would have made it illegal for Kyle to not only purchase a firearm, but illegal to own/brandish/carry one.

Would it have stopped someone from illegally buying Kyle one or Kyle using it? No. But then he wouldn’t have gotten away with murder.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ok? You could play that game for any law with any crime.

If Wisconsin had a law making it illegal to cross state lines then he would have been stopped too.

You're just saying "what if". This has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania law.

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 days ago

Yes, you could play that game for many laws. One like this, specifically, could have helped Kyle face justice. That’s the point.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -3 points 2 days ago

I bet it would have helped at the grassy knoll too!

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 days ago
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago

Lol "haha look at you replying to messages! What a loser!"

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 days ago

Replying and adding to the conversation are two very different things, friendo. Lmao

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago

Like bringing up a crime that didn't happen anywhere near the state this entire post is about? Friendo Lmao

[-] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 days ago

You may be short on reading comprehension, so the idea that a law in one state could have helped find justice in another is confusing to you. That’s okay.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

If other states adopt the law now that SCOTUS has blessed it, of course it will be useful.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago

No...no it won't. The fuck is with you people thinking criminals will magically follow the laws...you know the large inner cities have a problem with giggle switches on glocks being carried by literal kids right? Chicago tried to sue glock because of it.

Criminals don't magically stop doing something because you made it illegal.

You fix the problem at the source, and focus on the why it's happening, not with what was used.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
145 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3876 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS