Yeah, my grandfather had a collectible musket from the late 1700s or early 1800s too. Kept it on display by the back door over the laundry closet.

Doesn't matter what he used it for or why he bought it. It's purpose was still to fire bullets in order to kill things.

Like I said, you cannot successfully argue otherwise about any gun. I have a handgun. I don't expect to ever use it other than on a firing range.

Doesn't matter. It's purpose, the reason it was invented was not for target practice. Target practice came later. The purpose of the gun is to fire bullets in order to kill things.

And everyone knows it.

Similarly, a hoe or a baseball bat can be used to murder people. But that's not their purpose. They were designed and built to remove weeds from rows of crops and to hit a baseball as part of a game. Those are their purposes.

And everyone knows it.

Let us not pretend otherwise. And let's not treat people like they're stupid.

Literally everyone knows what a goddamned gun is for. What it's purpose is. The reason for its existence. There is not one single person, nor many animals, on this planet that has any sort of confusion over that practical and reasonable fact. So I fail to see why so many right leaning folks insist on this nonsense argument.

It. Does. Not. Hold. Water.

Murder and murderer are not exclusively legal terms. They are and have been used in common parlance for centuries and you're not changing or ignoring that salient fact no matter how hard to try. He's a murderer because he killed people he had priorly exhibited malice toward. In the exact moment, he was probably also defending himself.

The law does not own exclusive use of words. The law is also imperfect and gets things wrong. I'll remind you that OJ Simpson was also acquitted of murder and everybody knows he killed two people in cold blood. There have been many who got off due to legal semantics and/or trying the wrong or incomplete sets of facts.

I didn't say him being a white supremacist had anything to do with the murders. In fact, I clearly said I had no idea if he was a white supremacist before then or not so I'm not sure why you made that jump. Other than deflection.

If doesn't matter if they recruited him or not. He could have said no. He didn't have to be their poster boy. This isn't like TS and the NFL where she specifically requested they NOT film her at games and they ignored her and did it anyway. She had no choice.

Rittenhouse did.

He consented. He's willingly consented to everything they've collaborated on. He's been photographed in bars and at protests and all sorts of things alongside known white supremacists.

Ergo, he's also a white supremacist.

Let us not pretend otherwise.