Reese Witherspoon Legally Blonde
Courtesy MGM

By Larry Keane

Reese Witherspoon’s not a lawyer. But she’s played one on film.

Witherspoon’s credits during her Tinseltown tenure include roles involving firearms and the legal profession. In real life, her gun control comments following the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse show she knows little about either. She managed to demonstrate Hollywood’s hypocrisy on personal security and gun rights upon which regular Americans revere and depend.

Armchair Lawyering

It didn’t take long for the armchair lawyering to begin after a jury unanimously determined Rittenhouse had acted in self-defense when he used a modern sporting rifle (MSR) to protect himself when he was attacked during the Kenosha riots last year. High profile celebrities, sports figures and even President Joe Biden had already rushed to judgement before the trial.

After the facts were methodically laid out to the jury (and on TV for the whole world to see), celebrities still repeated falsehoods about Rittenhouse and called his acquittal an injustice. The starring role in this made-for-television drama was played by Witherspoon.

Reese Witherspoon gun
Courtesy Warner Home Video

“There was no justice,” Witherspoon tweeted. “This is a disgrace. No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe … for any of us?”

Defense counsel proved that Rittenhouse did not, in fact, cross state lines with the MSR. PolitiFact even rated U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) — the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — tweet saying so as “false.”

Those facts, though, didn’t get in the way of Witherspoon’s anti-gun narrative. She even thanked national gun control groups.

“@MomsDemand @Everytown thank you for the work you do. It is vital,” Witherspoon said.

The two gun control orgs had already passed judgement on Rittenhouse, including falsely labeling him a “white supremacist.” Facts didn’t matter to Witherspoon, her elite Hollywood celebrity friends, or national gun control groups.

Neither Witherspoon, her A-list celebrity friends or her vaunted gun control groups acknowledged that three convicted felons attacked Rittenhouse, including lone survivor Gaige Grosskreutz, who illegally possessed and carried a handgun that night. He testified that he pointed it at Rittenhouse’s head just before he acted in self-defense.

Here In The Real World

Witherspoon and her Hollywood friends would do better directing their ire in their own backyard rather than halfway across the country at the Rittenhouse verdict. There are plenty of legitimate safety concerns in Hollywood and the rest of Los Angeles County.

In California, one of the strictest gun control states in America, residents concerned about their personal safety were just on the receiving end of a one-two punch by local authorities. Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon is under fire for a pattern of allowing violent criminals off easy, including announcing the release of a convicted murderer after only six years of a 50-year prison sentence. Witherspoon’s Twitter account was suspiciously silent on that matter.

Witherspoon was also silent on the subject of safety following the Los Angeles Police Department’s recent advice that victims of follow-home robberies should just “cooperate and comply” with criminals.

The Legally Blonde actress may have remained silent because to speak up would have revealed the plot twist in the script. She lives in one of Hollywood’s gated neighborhoods with armed private security. That’s a luxury unaffordable to the rest of America. Life’s different when your name’s in lights. Calling for gun control while being guarded by men with guns isn’t real life. It’s just another example of Hollywood’s gun control hypocrisy.

Real America’s Responds

Far away from the silver screens, in neighborhoods and communities across the country, law-abiding Americans have responded to the ongoing crime and violence of the past two years by taking ownership of their Second Amendment rights. Over 21 million background checks were conducted for a firearm purchase in 2020, including 8.4 million who did so for the first time, many of them women, African Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Pacific Islanders.

4473 background check atf
Shutterstock

This year the pace is continuing, with nearly 15.7 million going into October and over 687,000 FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications concluded including in the run-up to Thanksgiving and Black Friday.

The good news is law-abiding Americans aren’t listening to Hollywood actors and instead are exercising their Second Amendment right.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

128 COMMENTS

  1. If Kyle isn’t careful, all these girls in Hollywood might give him a swelled head. Lol

    I would suggest he slow down, step back, and understand he is just the latest flavor of the month. Sure, the attention is nice but take it with a grain of salt. Just keep an open eye around you.

  2. “didya hear about that starlet that stabbed her guy? reese something?”
    “witherspoon?”
    “no, with a knife.”

  3. You’ve heard the joke’s about blond’s ,right ?
    Pick one, any one,,,
    This absolutely proves the jokes are based on FACT.

  6. “In what world is this safe … for any of us ?”

    given what you have planned for the rest of us, what makes you think you should be safe? you want to be safe while you help build another gulag again for the cattle?

  7. Rich upper class white people in hollywood don’t want the lower classes to have guns. Like Rosie O’Donnell. She wants her guns. She just doesn’t want you to have any guns.

  8. quote————–“There was no justice,” Witherspoon tweeted. “This is a disgrace. No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe … for any of us?”———–quote

    She hit the nail on the head. Rittenhouse provoked the violence by threatening people with an assault rifle and supporting the brutal police that paralyzed a man when there was no need for such violence.

    The Far Right Nazi Judge showed his bias throughout the entire trial and even demanded the jury clap on his orders like trained seals which was a violation of free speech rights and the right to privacy just to name a few of his outrageous behavior outbursts.

    The students at the University of Arizona this week want Rittenhouse thrown off campus permanently because they do not feel safe with a Far Right killer on the loose on their campus. Who can tell what he might do next? Maybe climb on top a building and open fire on all the Liberal Students. Do not laugh its a legitimate concern.

    My question is: Why is he not in Federal Prison awaiting trial on the gun violation????????

    • “The students at the University of Arizona this week want Rittenhouse thrown off campus permanently because they do not feel safe with a Far Right killer on the loose on their campus. Who can tell what he might do next? Maybe climb on top a building and open fire on all the Liberal Students. Do not laugh its a legitimate concern.”

      Now that’s pretty much BS.

      1. He hasn’t ever been on campus at University of Arizona. In recent media interviews, he said he wants to study on campus at ASU, but he did enroll to take classes on line but hasn’t taken a class yet, however, apparently he dis-enrolled because he is no longer enrolled. What happened was four student organizations at Arizona State University demanded he be removed as a student, not thrown off campus. Even if he did attend on campus they can’t throw him off campus, they get federal funds for programs and when a university receives federal funds they can’t “throw a student off campus” for simply enrolling and taking classes.

      four student groups complained about him being enrolled these are Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition and MECHA de ASU

      2. He’s not a “killer” – court said so. Court said it was self-defense, maybe you should look that term up.

      3. “Who can tell what he might do next?” take college classes?

      4. “Maybe climb on top a building and open fire on all the Liberal Students.” doubt it, hes afraid of heights. He’s not shown himself to be a threat, he acted in self defense. But you on the other hand if you were being attacked you’d probably ask for more K-Y jelly and roll over and take it you sniveling lying coward.

      • to Booger Brain

        quote—————4. “Maybe climb on top a building and open fire on all the Liberal Students.” doubt it, hes afraid of heights. He’s not shown himself to be a threat, he acted in self defense. But you on the other hand if you were being attacked you’d probably ask for more K-Y jelly and roll over and take it you sniveling lying coward.———-quote

        More juvenile comments about sex. Grow up only juveniles and punk kids make such comments about sex all the time.

        And once again I think the Feds will finally indict storm trooper Rittenhouse and his girl friends boy friend on Federal Charges because of the outrageous verdict by the Nazi Right Wing Judge that outraged the entire nation. Normal people do not want right wing nut cases intimidating and shooting people protesting Police murder and brutality or demonstrating for various political causes and rights. We will be hearing a lot more about our punk storm trooper in the days and weeks ahead. He will eventually end up where he belongs in prison where he can no longer start riots and murder people.

        • It wasn’t about sex. WTF is wrong with you? You have a very serious reading comprehension issue, it was clearly about being assaulted.

          You lied and you got caught. That’s it… now go cry to your mom about it ’cause no one here gives a damn about your insane and illiterate attempts to communicate your lies.

        • you sound solidly in the leftist camp on both of these cases..even though the law disagrees with you on both…odd that you would post here but you certainly have a right to do so…just as I do on liberal sites to their great annoyance….

    • You didn’t even see the trial or how the Prosecution made a case for self defense.

      You posted the talking points faithfully, just not the facts.

    • “She hit the nail on the head”
      If she hit a nail, it was a finger nail.
      Kyle did not provoke anyone and if the mere presence of a gun provoked them then that is their problem and they should have stayed home, if they are that feeble. The wise thing for them to have done would be to get away from Kyle instead of attacking. Really, were these people so stupid as to admit they felt provoked and then take action by attacking? The very definition of illogical.

    • She hit the Dacien on the head? Do you have a concussion? Nahh, I’m not believing you have a concussion. There has to be some gray matter to be concussed before you can develop a concussion.

    • ” Rittenhouse provoked the violence by threatening people with an assault rifle ”

      In what may have been the most videoed shooting in history, show me where Kyle even once brandished that AR in a threatening manner prior to being attacked.

      ” demanded the jury clap on his orders like trained seals which was a violation of free speech rights and the right to privacy just to name a few of his outrageous behavior outbursts ”

      I didn’t see any of this and, with the exception of Dipsh-t Dacian in one of hallucinogenic stupors I doubt that anyone else did either. If I’m wrong, point me to the documentation.

      ” students at the University of Arizona this week want Rittenhouse thrown off campus permanently ”

      First, it’s just a small group (or groups) of overly mouthy lefty students. Second, Kyle is not, nor ever was, on the UA campus, nor is he enrolled in any programs there. He takes classes by way of the internet. So it’s gonna be real hard to throw him off a campus that he’s never been to, and taking online classed from his home in IllAnnoys is hardly a threat to the little snowflakes in Arizona.

      Really, Dipsh-t, you’re lies are becoming a little too outrageous, even for you. Not that you ever had any credibility to begin with, but it’s definitely shot now, for good. Time for you to move on and try to annoy someone else ’cause it’s just not working for you in here anymore. Or even better, just go to YouTube and spend the day watching cat videos. It would be good therapy for you.

    • What gun violation? It is legal to have a rifle at 17 in the state he defended himself in. Lie, “ he crossed state lines with a firearm”. End lie. He spent summers in the town the riots were in, over a hundred cars were burnt in the lot he was protecting the night before, a lot owned by family friends. The pervert that survived pulled a gun on him first. Didn’t you read the article before you posted. I know facts are inconvenient but you really gotta try to be this stupid.

      • Dacian is absolutely right on anything and everything he post about.
        I’m in 100% agreement with him.
        The earth is flat, your right. The U.S.A. sucks, your right. Law enforcement only picks on poc, your right. Everyone is an idiot except Dacian, your right. I’m an idiot, your right.
        Lead’eth me to the light my wise and benevolent Master Dacian.

    • (1)She hit the nail on the head.

      Actually her statement is blatantly false based on lies spread by MSM from the beginning, if the stupid bitch had bothered to get the REAL facts instead of regurgitating “fake news truths” she would have at least been credible…

      (2) Why is he not in Federal Prison awaiting trial on the gun violation?

      What gun violation? The transaction did not meet the definition of a “straw purchase” as he gun was not bought with the intention of immediately transferring it to a “prohibited” person and Rittenhouse was not in violation of ANY Federal OR State laws on the night of the shooting which was pointed out during trial which is why those charges were dropped in State court…

  9. If your state doesn’t allow normal citizens to be armed then security guards, bodyguards (regardless if you’re a current or former LEO) and elites shouldn’t be allowed arms either. End the carve outs. Enough special privileges for the elites. Cops only get the weapons normies in their state are allowed while we’re at it.

    That’d make a great ballot initiative.

    • you’re not supposed to use guns to protect “property”….which is probably news to the armored car business…

  10. she would piss all over herself if she had to shoot a real gun and they talk about the damage the 223 bullet does what would bidens suggestion do a c12 gauge would have done it would have been 3 dead

  11. Who really cares what Reese Witherspoon says anyway. She’s an aging borderline alcoholic, married a known heroin and crack dealer who endangers the public by DUI with her in the car and she condones and enables it by not stopping it or getting away from it but she runs around drunk too, and parts opportunities for her seem to be dwindling as her ‘cutsie’ ‘legally blond’ image fades into relative obscurity. Heck, shes a bigger threat than Rittenhouse was with condoning and enabling heroin and crack sales and DUI.

    • I liked her when she debuted in her first role in 1991’s The Man In The Moon. Then maybe a couple other roles such as Legally Blonde. But she has shown herself to be just another ignorant Leftist Elite. In 2014’s Wild, she reversed her earlier statement to avoid sex scenes and engaged in some surprisingly graphic sex (threesome with strange men in an alley during her shift break as a waitress, other one-night-stands in various positions that showed more of her body than anyone thought she’d ever permit on camera). And she has a daughter who vocally sees her mom as a role model. Went from a good girl image to a whore.

      I stopped caring about her years ago.

      • ‘I sToPpEd CaRiNg AbOuT hEr YeArS aGo’, writes the ‘man’ who claims to be a pious Christian. It’s verrrrry Christian to ‘not care’ about someone.

        I’d also like to add that it’s been almost 11 months since you skipped out on 1/6 Freedom Day after telling everyone on TTAG that you’d be there. And then you blamed a fake virus.

        What a fraud and coward you are!

        • Um, never said I was going to be in D.C., Hail. It’s 3000 miles away from my home and the Freedom Rally was being held when COVID travel restrictions were being enforced. I’ve never been to D.C. in my life, and never said I was going.

          The only person I recall stating he was going is LifeSavor, and if you have me confused with a great person like him, then I’m not all that offended.

        • Weirdest trolls on TTAG. Dacian I can understand, I think he is actually a satirist. The ones that keep going after specific commenters are creepy. It’s been going on for years right?

  16. What fools like Witherspoon and Joe Brandon demonstrate is that if ever selected to a jury, they will not follow the law and the evidence, they will follow the media spin and their own deranged emotions.

  17. Blowbags like reese whitteringspoon are a source for movies you can live without and incompetent drama queen misinformation.

    • I didn’t even know who she is. Still don’t. I looked at photo, “yeah, pretty”, and I still don’t know who the hell she is.

      Of course, I’ve watched maybe ten movies in the last decade, and most of those were old classics like ‘Song of the South’. And, I only watched that one to try to figure out what the progressive left is offended about.

      • she’ss a decent actress…but her opinion…and that’s what it is…counts for little more than your own…

  18. Nothing new here. Anyone deeply engrossed into their side’s own narrative on some major emotional hot button political issue is going to be disconnected from reality on that issue. Liberals do it, conservatives too.

    I like her as an actress. She’s talented for the sort of acting jobs she takes on, fun and pretty. That said, just as I do with all actors, I prefer to not know their politics. Once they get to a certain point of ignorance and volume the distraction of all that pushes me away from watching them act.

    Of Rittenhouse, I am absolute in his innocence of the charges brought against him. But I see no hero in him. I see an immature idiot out of his depth who walked into something untrained, unprepared and with little if any plan. He and his buddy should have been on the roof of the car dealership, where the owner directed them to. They should not have split up. The potential of getting into a hairball with the crowd only goes up with proximity and access. Being on the ground, then separating, was incompetent.

    I now read in the news that Rittenhouse no longer wants his AR-15 and arranged for it to be destroyed. Raises doubts he will accept the custom AR-15 that has been reportedly offered him as a commemorative gift.

    One last thing, the Strawman Purchase of the AR-15. That is a Federal crime on which I have heard no charges. Why not? Why is the US Attorney ignoring the illegal gun buy of Dominick Black and Kyle Rittenhouse? OR are they waiting to see how the State charges against Black play out before deciding on any Federal charge?

    This thing isn’t over until we know the intentions of the Feds, as in the US Attorney and the DoJ.

    • It is a good question why the US attorney has not charged either Rittenhouse or black with the federal felony.

      And strawman firearms purchases are also a class G felony under Wisconsin state law, why did the state prosecutor fail to charge Rittenhouse with this crime?

      Rittenhouse himself admitted in multiple interviews that he used his $1200 Covid stimulus check for the purchase, giving the money to his sisters boyfriend, Dominick black, who would hold the weapon for him in Wisconsin until Rittenhouse came to Kenosha.

      Black illegally transfered the weapon to Rittenhouse on the day of the killings, Rittenhouse was in felony possession of an illegally obtained weapon when two people were killed, he should’ve been charged with felony murder.

      • Charged was dropped because the WI law was vaguely written, per the judge.

        But you knew that…

        • Nope you’re wrong, the charges you’re speaking of has to do with possession of a rifle by minor in WI.
          That’s just a misdemeanor, and it is vague and ambiguous.

          Really, you’re smarter than this, aren’t you?

          In Wisconsin, strawman firearms purchases are a class G felony:

          https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-941-crimes-against-public-health-and-safety/subchapter-iii-weapons/section-9412905-straw-purchasing-of-firearms

          Really, do you think it is legal for a Wisconsin resident to strawman purchase a firearm for a 17-year-old Illinois resident? Are you serious?

        • Upon review, I see that you’re correct that I need to clarify. However, Rittenhouse was never charged with that offense, because the “straw purchase” never happened as defined by the law of what a straw purchase is. Rittenhouse’s friend purchased the gun with the intent of transferring it to him when he would later turn 18, which would be legal. Temporarily allowing possession is not transfer of ownership.

        • Black bought the gun with Rittenhouse’s money, not with his own money. He lied about it on the 4473. He and Rittenhouse have admitted they thought it was an illegal buy.

          If you buy a gun with another person’s money, if you aid that other person in avoiding a background check, if that other person is prohibited from possessing the gun, then it is a Strawman purchase.

          Their claim of an end plan of waiting for Rittenhouse to turn 18 is beside the point. The plan was to evade Federal law at the moment the gun was purchased, and indeed that is the action they took.

          Black and Rittenhouse are guilty of that crime.

      • What is up with you people, can you not admit the truth right before your eyes?
        Is there no FFL licensee or lawyer on this list who will admit Rittenhouse and blacks firearms transactions were illegal under both Wisconsin state law and federal code?

        On the day of the killings, Rittenhouse and black consummated their illegal Class G Felony strawman purchase when black transferred possession of the illegally obtained A.R. 15 to Rittenhouse who later killed two people utilizing the illegally obtained weapon.

        This is the very definition of felony murder.

        • I believe it would depend on if Rittenhouse was not lawfully able to own a long gun. The age to purchase and the age to own are different.

          If he could lawfully own it where he lived, (IL)and the 72hr waiting period from purchase to possession passed, and he had a FOID card, then you could say it was a legal transfer.

          My honest answer to your question.

        • Thank you for your honest answer:

          “If he could lawfully own it where he lived, (IL)and the 72hr waiting period from purchase to possession passed, and he had a FOID card, then you could say it was a legal transfer.

          My honest answer to your question.“

          Illinois resident, no FOID, not 18, no waiting period… Prohibited person.

          Black knew all this when he accepted Rittenhouse’s stimulus money and purchased the weapon, Black knew all this when he transferred possession of the weapon to Rittenhouse the day of the riots.

          Felony under both Wisconsin state law and federal laws…

          So why hasn’t Rittenhouse been charged with either the Wisconsin state felony or the federal felony?

          Smells like some sort of privilege…

        • “Smells like some sort of privilege…”

          …Which is obviously why the powerful in this country piled on, smeared, and intentionally lied about a kid. It was because of his privilege.

          Yet, those same people ran interference for the Puppet, claiming verified stories were Russian misinformation because people wouldn’t want to vote for him if they were presented with the truth. I don’t think Kyle’s the one with the privilege.

        • Do we know he doesn’t have a FOID? I don’t remember if anyone has reported that.

          We also have the fact his Father lives in Kenosha, and if the firearm never left Wisconsin or was taken to IL the FOID would be a non issue. I don’t think IL has jurisdiction if the firearm is not brought to IL.

          Straw purchases are still more difficult to prove, because KR is not prohibited by age to own a firearm only to purchase. How does one possess something they can legally have and not be legally able to purchase? Here I think is why it won’t be pursued, it could open a can of worms that the Feds don’t want opened.

          Then we also would have to apply the law to the individual who was wounded who was a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. How did he get that firearm? Do you think the DA wants togo there on him too. Politically they will allow the issue to be forgotten for government convenience.

          The Wisconsin statute appears to be about short barrel weapons, not long barrel so a strict reading of that statute is almost impossible. Neither the Judge, Prosecutor or Defense could make sense of it.

          I don’t think mentioning he used stimulus money helps either way. People have have used stimulus money for everything from firearms to drugs. Illinois cannabis industry had high profits following the release of stimulus. Now if that money was stolen from his Grandmother in a nursing home it would be worth mentioning as that implies a character trait, stimulus money not so much since even people who didn’t need stimulus got it anyway.

          What privilege? In Illinois there are several straw purchases that are never prosecuted involving poc, mostly gang members. Straw purchases are rarely prosecuted regardless of a persons perceived privilege.

        • Currahee, thanks for your reasonable and polite response.

          “Do we know he doesn’t have a FOID? I don’t remember if anyone has reported that”

          Kyle was about four years too young for an FOID card, that’s why his sisters boyfriend bought the gun for him in Wisconsin in a knowing attempt to evade both state and federal firearms laws:

          “To be eligible for a FOID card, a person must be 21 years of age or have a parent or guardian sponsor that is eligible for a FOID card.”

          https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Faq.aspx

          “The Wisconsin statute appears to be about short barrel weapons, not long barrel“

          Wrong, the Wisconsin straw firearms purchase statute makes no mention of long guns or handguns, it is all inclusive:

          “Section 941.2905 – Straw purchasing of firearms
          (1) Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.”

          https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-941-crimes-against-public-health-and-safety/subchapter-iii-weapons/section-9412905-straw-purchasing-of-firearms

          “In Illinois there are several straw purchases that are never prosecuted involving poc, mostly gang members“

          Wrong, here is a strawman purchase prosecution that occurred contemporaneously with the events in Kenosha:

          “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
          Monday, August 9, 2021
          Indiana Man Charged With Scheming to Straw Purchase Firearm Allegedly Used To Shoot Two Chicago Police Officers, One Fatally
          CHICAGO — The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago today charged an Indiana man with federal firearm violations for allegedly conspiring to straw purchase a semi-automatic handgun that the charges allege was used to shoot two Chicago Police officers last weekend, including the fatal wounding of Officer Ella French.
          – [ ] JAMEL DANZY purchased the firearm at a federal firearms dealer in Hammond, Ind., on March 18, 2021, and falsely certified on the required forms that he was the actual buyer, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  In reality, Danzy was a straw purchaser who bought the gun at the request of someone whom Danzy knew resided in Chicago, Ill., and was not lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm”

          So do you think Jamal Danzy is a POC?

          https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/indiana-man-charged-scheming-straw-purchase-firearm-allegedly-used-shoot-two-chicago

        • I wasn’t a Currahee, I was a Red Devil, but accept it as meant, complimentary.

          The statute I was referring to was the argument the about deadly weapons.

          I don’t know the particular individual you referenced buying in Hammond, or ethnicity. The handgun law vs rifle laws are are different for age restrictions and purchasing. That i just one prosecution out of 44,000. The average from what I remember was 48? That were actually prosecuted. National of course.

          Danzy was required under Federal law to transfer the hanguns to an IL FFL. Which he didn’t. Rifles don’t have that criteria. Not to mention the intents involved. Danzy knew they were going to be used for murdering cops. Back had no such cause to think KR was going to do anything like that.

          Do we know if he had a FOID? His mother as the Illinois resident parent would have to had signed off on it as your stated. But if he never took the firearm to Illinois would it matter? His Father is a Wisconsin resident. How does that play? Would Court ordered custody be in play? What if they had joint custody?

          How was KR prohibited from possession? He could own a firearm at 17, but could not purchase. Bit of a quandary the law has.

        • Genuine questions for you. When I was young, my father bought me a youth shotgun chambered in 20 gauge. It was technically his until the day I turned 18 at which point it legally became mine. Was this a straw purchase as you claim? Am I and my father felons? I handled and shot the gun as young as 14.

          If I had been attacked as a minor while holding the gun, would I not be able to use the gun in self defense? Would this make me a murderer?

          Yes this is a friend and not family. Yes this is an AR rather than a pump action shotgun. However, a straw purchase has a very specific legal definition requiring the knowing purchase of a gun to give to a prohibited person. I don’t believe that Kyle’s instance counts. Perhaps you can show me the violent crime, drug related charges or any other felony conviction that Kyle has which would prevent him from buying his own firearm

        • More appropriately…

          A son saves his allowance and gives it to his father so the father can purchase a long gun “for him”. The father purchases the firearm, keeps the firearm in his possession on his property, and the son only has acess to the firearm through the father. Who is the actual “owner” of the firearm in this scenario?

          These are the questions that people need to be asking: Who is the actual “buyer”, who is the actual “owner”, and who had actual legal “possession” of said firearm in the Rittenhouse case?

          Did Kyle make a retail purchase of a fiearm? Did Kyle actually “own” the rifle? Who filled out the paperwork, took physical possession and retained physical care and control of the firearm? Where, when, and for how long did Kyle operate the firearm outside the presence of Mr. Black? Was it a crime for Kyle to operate said firearm? How do you define “possession” of a firearm? Does it matter if Kyle gave money to Mr. Black before or after Mr. Black made a retail purchase of a firearm- a firearm that Mr. Black retained care, control, and physical possession of?

          It would appear there should be clear-cut answeres to these questions. And if so- why are they causing so much consternation?

        • the jury didn’t think so…nor did at least half the country..one thing I was curious about was whether or not Kyle took that firearm home with him after the shooting….

        • “one thing I was curious about was whether or not Kyle took that firearm home with him after the shooting….“

          Yes, it was in the trunk of the car when he fled from Wisconsin across state lines into Illinois. Thus, Kyle committed another federal felony, as well as an Illinois felony.

          Kyle turned himself in Illinois, hoping to avoid arrest and incarceration in Wisconsin.

          Regardless, he can be charged with interstate transportation of the firearm, illegal possession and transfer in Illinois as well.

          Of course, he won’t be charged for any of these crimes because he seems to enjoy some sort of special privilege…

          I wonder if a high school dropout named Tyrone would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as Kyle has enjoyed…

        • According to testimony Mr. Black purchased an M&P15 rifle and kept it in a safe in the basement of his home in Kenosha.

          When Kyle tried to surrender to law enforcement in Kenosha after defending himself with the rifle Mr. Black owned, he was told to leave the area.

          Mr. Black drove Kyle back to IL with the rifle where Kyle then turned himself in to law enforcement along with the rifle.

          Kyle did not enter WI with the rifle, and Mr. Black returned Kyle to IL along with the rifle where it was surrendered to police.

          There was never a “transfer” of the rifle to Kyle- Mr. Black purchased it, he had care of control of it at his house, he allowed the use of it to Kyle while in his presence, and he delivered it to IL where it was turned over to law enforcement.

          One could argue that the absence of charges being pursued could be attributed to the actual facts of the case- not “some sort of special privilege”.

    • Separate the art from the artist. If you got to know more about them, you probably wouldn’t care for 99% of them.

      • These days, I prefer to separate from the art (if you can call it that). If anything they’ve done is worth seeing, I’ll pirate it. I don’t want to give those repulsive specimens a single cent of my hard-earned money if I can help it.

    • straw purchase charge is weak considering the circumstances…doesn’t follow the usual pattern where intent was obvious…

  19. We can live without Hollywood but Hollywood cant live without us.
    Hollywood thinks it’s the other way around.

  20. “Defense counsel proved that Rittenhouse did not, in fact, cross state lines with the MSR.“

    This is correct, Rittenhouse took possession of the weapon when his co-conspirator, Dominic black, illegally transferred the weapon into Rittenhouse’s possession so that Rittenhouse could attend the riot with the A.R. 15 he obtained in the strawman conspiracy.

    Engaging in a strawman firearms purchase is a felony under both Wisconsin state law and federal criminal code.

    Because two individuals died during the commission of the strawman firearms felony, Rittenhouse and Dominic black both qualify for felony murder charges.

    • I’m not sure that deal meets the criteria of a strawman purchase.

      I purchased firearms for my pre-teen children. I delivered custody of all those firearms to those children before they reached the age of majority. Is that a strawman purchase?

      In later years, I come even closer to fitting the strawman definition. I accepted money from my teenage kids, and used that money to purchase rifles and shotguns, then immediately transferred possession of those weapons.

      Gonna send me to prison?

      Okay, if/when you point out that Dominic Black was not the legal guardian, things get a little messy. But I still don’t think it’s a strawman purchase. Black did not give the weapon to a prohibited person, that is, a convict or a psycho. I believe everything was kosher.

      • Do you believe it was kosher for Dominick black to perpetrate a fraud by lying on his form 4473 regarding the source of the funds and the true purchaser of the weapon?

        Do you believe it is kosher for a Wisconsin resident to purchase long guns for a 17 year old Illinois resident?

        Perhaps someone with an FFL or with other specialized legal knowledge might be kind enough to comment on these questions…

        • I believe its kosher .
          LMFAO- – – -^
          Anybody and everybody has the right to be armed. The 4473 form is an infringement. Ths strawman purchase is bullshit. The type of weepon and where you can and cannot go with it. How many boolits it holds. A thing on the end of the barrel that makes it quiet. All infringements. —Keep Pushing—
          Next you’ll HAVE to have gunm insurance , if its insured it has to be registered, if its registered its licensed.
          Ain’t no such thing as strawman purchase

        • Actually, Miner, I believe it’s perfectly acceptable because one of the people on MY side did it.

          Admit it: If Rittenhouse were a leftist, you’d be cheering him on instead of whining about a gun-control technicality.

        • You’re right Ing. Miner cheered on the BLM-Antifa assassins that killed people with their guns during the Colour Revolution of 2020.

        • Where is the question concerning “SOURCE of FUNDS” on 4473? Is that something they added since the 28th (last time I filled one out)? Or have I been missing that question since I’ve been filling out 4473s? OR is it just more made-up BS from miner?

        • “Admit it: If Rittenhouse were a leftist, you’d be cheering him on instead of whining about a gun-control technicality.“

          Wrong, I’ve already advocated on this list that Grosskreutz should be charged with arson, assault with a deadly weapon, felon in possession plus whatever other charges can be found.

        • “Where is the question concerning “SOURCE of FUNDS” on 4473?“

          The ‘buyer’ is the person who provides the funds for the purchase of the weapon. Black stated on his 4473 that he was the buyer when Rittenhouse had actually provided the funds for the purchase of the weapon.

          You should check line 9 and 21A if you have any misunderstandings about form 4473.

          https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

        • Dude posts:

          “ …during the Colour Revolution of 2020“

          Woopsie doodle, what a slip up in tradecraft you just made.

          Note to ‘Dude’s’ handlers: in the United States we spell “colour” C O L O R.

          Seriously, you’re gonna have to get the vernacular and spelling down if your agitprop is going to be believable in the states.

          Friggin Ivans… I bet your head is full of stainless steel fillings, sad sack ‘operator’…

        • Miner evading the true answer as always, I see. The question was about Rittenhouse, not Lefty Grossekreutz.

        • The ‘buyer’ is the person who provides the funds for the purchase of the weapon

          That is correct, the “buyer” is the person who “physically” pays for the firearm either by cash, check, money order, bank draft, credit/debit card, bitcoin or WHATEVER… No one has EVER asked me where I got the money to purchase a gun… Everyone gets their money from someone else and your presumption that Rittenhouse was not a resident of Wisconsin is flawed as well. The kids father lived in Wisconsin and he also had a job in Kenosha which means he paid state income taxes there. It is possible to be a dual resident. I am a resident of Florida and I also own property in Virginia where I too am considered a resident and can vote in either state (but not in the same election cycle)… As far as who is the actual end user is concerned most states consider possession as anything over 30 days which Black exceeded considerably and he never acknowledged transfer of ownership to Rittenhouse… The gun was turned over to Ill police when Rittenhouse surrendered to them in Blacks presence… Argue your senseless point all you want, there is nothing on that form that inquires as to where I got the funds to buy a gun and in fact it’s none of their business… OBTW: line 9 is just buyers name, line 21a is Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)?
          Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
          not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. That question is vague at best and confusing at worst but is not relevant “technically” because Rittenhouse never actually took possession of the gun and Black WAS the actual buyer at the point of sale regardless of future arrangements for the transfer of the firearm and there is NOTHING in either question referencing the origin of the funds used in the purchase…

        • To whomever the MODERATOR is GFY… I am through with this bullshit, there is absolutely NOTHING in my previous post that could possibly be an issue but that doesn’t matter, I’m through with this, you people were among the first and the loudest to condemn FB and Kommie Twit for their censorship and now about every third post I enter gets “moderated” so let Minerva and Vladacian spew their garbage at will, I will no longer be participating… Bye y’all…

        • “It’s only about tribalism”

          yep. always has been.

          until people grasp that, they’ll never understand what is being done to them. unfortunately they’ve been trained and conditioned all their lives to always reject seeing it for themselves, and to irrationally attack anyone who points it out to them.

      • “And how about a gun charge for the one armed guy and assault for jump kick guy”

        Yep, charge them both.

        Huber for assault with a deadly weapon, Grosskreutz may have been involved in the arsons as well… Book ‘em, Dano!

  21. Hollyweird. Think about it for a second. They have spent about 100 years propagandizing how sexy guns are. Guns are powerful. They publish movies from 1 to 2 1/2 hours long, in which guns are the solution to ever problem Blockbusters, they call them – 100 minutes of shooting, exploding, smashing and crashing violence. That’s not even considering the daily and evening shows on television. Cops run around the city, violating every law on record, shooting up the scenery, thereby solving everybody’s worst problems. For that matter, criminals run around the city , shooting up the scenery, creating more work for bumbling cops in many movies. For ~100 years, this has been standard fare, fed to children from the cradle, all the way to the grave. Glorify the violence, no matter how senseless, at all costs.

    But, Hollyweird doesn’t want you to have a gun.

  22. Hollywood is full of self appointed experts who have pretended expertise for so long they believe they are actual experts. The suck ups they surround themselves with consistently assure them as to their absolute mastery of everything.

    • “they believe they are actual experts”

      not at all. in their ideology, they are the center of the universe – the universe was made by god for them and revolves around them. the meaning of life is THEM. their physical existence, their material thoughts and desires, their beliefs and attitudes, are the CORE of reality itself – and anything that does not conform to that core is by definition evil, to be eliminated.

      “experts”? (laugh) no, they don’t posture as experts. rather they pose as the OWNERS. the owners of it all. including you.

  23. But she is a has been Hollywood starlet, she knows how the justice system works. So you know it’s true.

  24. Once again, if you are a victim of any kind of senseless violence with anything but a gun, you don’t matter.

    If you are the victim of senseless violence with a gun, you don’t matter either except as a tool, as a wedge between Americans and their liberty, and each other.

    • this was a self-defense case…something they would like to deny to you…they lost and they don’t like it….

  25. Synopsis: “Irrelevant, vapid Hollywood leftist bimbo blathers like irrelevant, vapid Hollywood leftist bimbo.”

    Complete tautology, literally the antithesis of news – not even worth the trons it’s printed on.

    Unlike people who run governments, companies, etc., “celebrities” only have the power we give them by pretending they matter. Please stop.

  26. In other Hollywood bullshit today…

    Alec Baldwin to George Stephanopoulos – “The trigger wasn’t pulled. I didn’t pull the trigger…..”

    One of those guns that “just went off”. Or maybe, his gun got hacked. That’s always a good fallback.

    • sounds pretty lame..guns don’t usually fire themselves…and single action revolvers usually require a lot of user input

  28. Bet she believes Baldwins latest claim that “He never pulled the trigger” Must have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll… NEW headline: EVIL gun KILLS one severely wounds another with single “miraculous” shot… When questioned the gun plead the 5th and demanded an attorney… The gun was later released under the new “no cash bail rules” and ordered to NOT leave the state pending further investigation…

  30. “No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe … for any of us ?”

    Rittenhouse did not “purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free.”

    1. He was already in Kenosha. He spent the night not wanting to risk driving home tired, like you know, a responsible person, and went to the protest riot area the next day.

    2. Although the claim that Rittenhouse conspired for a “straw purchase” may be considered true by some it turns out to maybe not be true after all as more facts are coming out. Kyle gifted some money to Dominic Black so that Black could buy the rifle for himself then do a private sale to Rittenhouse once he turned 18. Rittenhouse was acting responsibly and legally in this aspect. But, need to wait until the law finishes with this whole thing.

    3. Did Rittenhouse “kill 2 people, wound another”? Yep, he did and he did it because he had no other choice if he was going to avoid serious bodily injury or death at the hands of violent known felon criminals who attacked him without provocation.

    4. Some say that if Rittenhouse had not had the rifle then he would not have been attacked thus having the rifle was provoking thus provoked the attacks. Nope, not true and the video evidence shows its not true – if all of the videos and evidence is looked at you begin to realize that when the initial attacks started that others who were not armed were being attacked as well.

    The attacks in the area were random to begin with and in that frenzy was Rittenhouse at the wrong place at the wrong time. He got targeted by Rosenbaum who was armed with a chain and had already assault another was looking for another victim then the others in their criminal lust for violence and in states of frenzy targeted Rittenhouse.

    Rosenbaum, yes he got killed and so did Huber, and Grosskreutz got wounded – because they attacked Rittenhouse without provocation, that’s what violent criminals do in a violent area where they purposely go to cause violence to someone and that victim was Rittenhouse.

    Joseph Rosenbaum was a sex offender pedophile – 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity around children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He also had open misdemeanor cases for battery (domestic abuse) and disorderly conduct (domestic abuse). All three of the men who were shot by Rittenhouse have violent criminal histories.

    Rosenbaum’s is arguably the most relevant because, video and eyewitnesses show, he was the instigator that night.

    Yes, Rittenhouse went free – he went free because he was alive by using legal and justified self-defense. Had Witherspoon been such a victim i’ll bet she would have used what was at her disposal to defend herself but maybe not because she seems too stupid to recognize that self-defense exists.

    • “Rittenhouse was acting responsibly and legally in this aspect.”

      Should have been..

      Rittenhouse and Black would have been acting responsibly and legally in this aspect because at age 18 Rittenhouse would not have been a prohibited person and Black could have legally sold what was his property legally to Rittenhouse thus a legal transfer of the firearm.

      • This seems to be supported out by testimony, yet no proof presented yet in the case against Dominic Black that substantiates intent for a straw purchase.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/02/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-dominick-black-first-witness/6258860001/

        “Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black’s family’s hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn’t lawfully buy or possess one.

        Black said he used Rittenhouse’s money to make the purchase. …

        Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn’t get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020.

        …”

        “Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal … ”

        not clear from the linked article but looking at the context of the testimony it seems Black is talking about it was illegal for Rittenhouse to purchase it himself and a straw purchase was illegal.

        If this testimony is true, then there was no intent for a straw purchase, and a straw purchase was not conducted. It was agreed that Rittenhouse would not receive the rifle until he was no longer an purchase age prohibited person at age 18. Its clear from the testimony context that Black is talking about transferring the rifle to Ritternhouse for ownership at age 18, and not purchasing the rifle for transfer to a person prohibited from purchase by age.

        “They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, ….”

        This is not illegal. He could under state law posses the rifle (as adjudicated by the court), but under federal law he could not purchase the rifle himself due to age. There is no federal law which prohibits a person age 17 from possessing a rifle unless they are a prohibited person due to convictions for crimes (and a few other things) and Rittenhouse had no such disqualifying matters – a person under age 18 just may not purchase a rifle from an FFL holder, state law from there dictates at what age a person can purchase a rifle from other than an FFL holder.

        There are no federal laws preventing unlicensed persons from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age. (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/minimum-age-gun-sales-and-transfers) – The “Unlicensed Persons” the ATF is talking about at the link are those which do not have an FFL, Dominic Black does not have an FFL thus is an “Unlicensed Persons” under federal law.

        Rittenhouse could not buy the rifle himself from an FFL because an FFL is prohibited from selling a rifle to someone under age 18. But, Rittenhouse could have purchased or received a rifle from an “Unlicensed Persons” if he had chosen to but didn’t. So they took the reasonable safe path that Black would purchase now, but not transfer the rifle to Rittenhouse until he was age 18 – this is not illegal and is not a straw purchase – it was actually pretty responsible and shows they had intent to follow the law even if they did not know exactly what the law said.

        Dominic Black could have, under federal law, given the rifle to Rittenhouse at any time as “otherwise transferring” – so under federal law it was not illegal for Black to let Rittenhouse shoot “a couple hundred rounds that week” with the rifle. Under state law, during the trial it was adjudicated that Rittenhouse was carrying the rifle legally.

        The article continues …

        Normally, Black testified, Rittenhouse’s rifle and his own were locked in gun safes at Black’s house. The safes could be opened only by Black’s stepfather. The stepfather, concerned the unrest might reach their home, had taken all the guns to the basement.

        Black said he was in the kitchen when Rittenhouse came up the steps with his rifle. Before returning downtown, they bought tactical slings for the rifles.”

        Ok, this is a point a lot of people went nuts over claiming that Rittenhouse was carrying an illegal rifle illegally. Well, most likely he wasn’t. He could under state law posses the rifle, but under federal law he could not purchase the rifle due to age but actually could posses the rifle because he was not a person prohibited possession due to convictions for crimes. There has not been any intent proven that shows Black intended to buy a rifle for the specific purpose of giving it to a prohibited person.

        It seems it would be a straw purchase only if Rittenhouse and Black had deliberate intent to circumvent state or federal law by Black purchasing the rifle with the intent to transfer for ownership to Rittenhouse while he was under age 18. So far that has not been shown.

        But lets wait for the legal system to finish this.

    • “Kyle gifted some money to Dominic Black so that Black could buy the rifle for himself then do a private sale to Rittenhouse once he turned 18.”

      Hilarious story, too bad Kyle has already admitted in multiple interviews that the weapon was his all along.

      And Kyle was still 17 when Dominick illegally transferred ownership to him the day of the riots, thus consummating the state and federal felony.

      • It was his in all but actual transfer ownership. So? that’s not a crime like you think it is.

        There are no federal laws preventing unlicensed persons from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age. (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/minimum-age-gun-sales-and-transfers) – The “Unlicensed Persons” the ATF is talking about at the link are those which do not have an FFL, Dominic Black does not have an FFL thus is an “Unlicensed Persons” under federal law.

        it would be a straw purchase only if Rittenhouse and Black had deliberate intent to circumvent state or federal law by Black purchasing the rifle with the intent to transfer for ownership to Rittenhouse while he was under age 18. So far that has not been shown. All the evidence so far points to an ownership transfer after Kyle became 18.

        It also turns out there is no state law that prohibited Rittenhouse from possessing and carrying the rifle at age 17.

        At age 17, the only thing prohibited under federal or state law was Rittenhouse being able to purchase the rifle.

        but…. lets wait for the legal system to finish with this

        • Thanks for your thoughtful response!

          “it would be a straw purchase only if Rittenhouse and Black had deliberate intent to circumvent state or federal law by Black purchasing the rifle with the intent to transfer for ownership to Rittenhouse while he was under age 18.“

          What? Clearly Rittenhouse and black had deliberate intent to circumvent state and federal law by black purchasing the rifle (with Rittenhouse’s money) and transferring ownership to Rittenhouse before he was 18. That’s exactly what happened by their own admission.

          If it was completely legal for Kyle then why didn’t he just drive the 20 minutes to Ace Hardware in Kenosha and buy the AR 15?

          He was a ‘prohibited person’ because he was underage, a resident of another state and had no Illinois FOID card.

          “Normally, Black testified, Rittenhouse’s rifle and his were kept in the gun safe at his house”

          Bang, there it is, his admission during testimony under oath.

          It was “Rittenhouse’s rifle”, purchased with Rittenhouse’s money illegally by Dominick black who falsified his form 4473 when he purchased the weapon with Rittenhouse’s money at Ace Hardware. The straw firearms purchase was executed on the day of the riots when black retrieved the rifle from the gun safe at his home and transferred it to Rittenhouse before the killings at the riots.

        • Miner 49, I have some genuine questions for you. I’m hoping as you’ve commented the day after the post that you’ll see these and be able to answer.

          When I was young, my father bought me a youth shotgun chambered in 20 gauge. It was technically his until the day I turned 18 at which point it legally became mine. The reason my father bought it is because at the age of 14, it was not legal for me to buy a gun. Was this a straw purchase as you claim? Am I and my father felons? Do you believe we SHOULD be felons? I handled and shot the gun as young as 14 which as you write was “consummating the state and federal felony”

          If I had been attacked as a minor while holding the gun, would I not be able to use the gun in self defense? Would this make me a murderer?

          Yes this was Kyle’s friend and not family. Yes this is an AR rather than a pump action shotgun. However, at the age of seventeen, Kyle was legally allowed to own a gun, just not legally allowed to purchase a gun. My understanding of a Straw Purchase is buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from OWNING a gun which is not the case here.

          As for his residency, Kyle’s father lives in Kenosha and he spends a great deal of time there. So long as the gun doesn’t cross into Illinois, there is nothing illegal about Kyle leaving his property with family and/or friends in Wisconsin. Kyle doesn’t need a FOID card.

    • the core of their argument…sef-defense does not fit within the parameters they have planned for us….

      • by the way, my parents bought me a shotgun when I was 15…it was a X-mas present…does that make me a felon as well?

  31. Reese Whitheredpoon needs to step outside of her bubble. Her fithy-rich-pays-for-own-private-security privilege is showing.

  32. The only comment I have to make as I am sick and tired of these jerks screwing the
    facts as they please is: I AM PRAYING THAT ALEC BALDWIN GOES DOWN BIG TIME FOR THE
    DEATH THAT HE CAUSED….THERE IS NO EXCUSE IN THE WORLD FOR HIM TO GET AWAY
    WITH THIS CHARGE…HE WAS THE “LAST” PERSON TO HANDLE THE DEADLY FIREARM THAT
    CAUSED HER DEATH.

  33. “Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon is under fire for a pattern of allowing violent criminals off easy, including announcing the release of a convicted murderer after only six years of a 50-year prison sentence. Witherspoon’s Twitter account was suspiciously silent on that matter.”

    The only possible manner in which the above travesty of justice would be acceptable is if the released felon somehow killed Reese Witherspoon with his hands in front of her heavily armed security team. Now, that would be poetic justice. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon is under fire for a pattern of allowing violent criminals off easy,

      Fortunately the Baldwin “incident” occurred in New Mexico far from the purview of the L.A. County DA

  34. you’re not supposed to use guns to protect “property”….which is probably news to the armored car business…

  35. Pic shows her finger not outside triggerguard. I wonder what her take on Baldwin and the street looters are? No, I really do not care for her opinion.

  36. It wasn’t very long ago, that events of a crime were left up to gathered evidence after the fact, and sometimes unreliable witness testimony. The events would need to be put together like a puzzle and hope justice was served when the conclusion of the case came to fruition.
    Apparently now even with video from several different angles of an event, leaving NO DOUBT of the exact details of an event, some people are still too stupid to believe their own eyes and would rather listen to lies contradicting what is before their very eyes. 9/11 is a great example as well as JFK. This should be little surprise as our nation has become much more ignorant, lazy, skill less, dysfunctional, God less and submissive since the 1960s (1967 is when the US govt. took over “education”).
    As for the large population made of of the above mentioned braindead zombie, Hellywierd is its’ own psychodrama where the ENTIRE population is clueless and happily so. The fact that ANYONE would listen seriously to an actress about anything other than SWAG bags they get from their self agrandizzing award shows, illustrates the extreme level of ignorance and conditioning half our population has succumbed to.

  37. Ok. Rittenhouse was found not guilty in court and acquitted on all charges. The gun charges were thrown out because they didn’t apply.
    So, I know I haven’t lived in Wisconsin for 20 years, but, I do have family there. As far as anyone has informed me, the laws haven’t changed in 30 odd years. First off. Rittenhouse was over the age of 16 and could legally be in possession of a long gun. The AR he had fits that description. Secondly. The rifle was purchased by a Wisconsin resident, and was kept in the same state. He didn’t cross any state lines with said rifle. Nor is crossing state lines with a firearm illegal in either Illinois or Wisconsin. Third. It is legal both in Wisconsin, and under Federal law to loan someone a firearm for any legal purpose. So long as that person can legally possess said firearm.
    Lastly, Ms. Witherspoon is only regurgitating the verbal vomit she heard on Twitter and CNN. Rittenhouse was, and may still be a BLM supporter. He has never espoused or repeated any racist or white supremist viewpoints. He was not brandishing or threatening anyone with his rifle. Attacking someone with a rifle in their hands is asking to be shot. As is threatening to kill that same person. The so called victims received the only known cure for stupid.

Comments are closed.