Quote (Buhhh @ 11 Nov 2021 09:14)
In a post where you rerouted here to the URL, I stated he acted in self-defense. In terms of the trial, he did act entirely upon the nature of which anyone would in that scenario.
But...he obtained a gun illegally and through those means killed two people, although in self-defense. Considering everyone is cookie-cutter taking the bait of this entire political facade, I think finding some common ground doesn't hurt and don't consider it bait but I understand your sentiment.
The gun was legally purchased, and he was legally in possession of it. Your premise is false. It is legal for a 17 year old to be in possession of a rifle. The rifle was willingly provided to Kyle by the purchaser of that rifle. You are factually incorrect in your assertion.
You are correct that he killed two people using that firearm, as well as blew the bicep of a third. However, given that every one of those three people were actively attacking Kyle, chasing Kyle, and preventing him from escaping, these kills would be determined by anyone of a sound mind to be necessary for Kyle's self-preservation.
I get that you believe it was self-defense. However, you're attempting to promote a weapons violation that doesn't exist, and phrase the acts of self-defense in the worst possible light.