Since I'm planning on crossing state lines with a gun (actually three guns) in a few days, I couldn't help thinking about how truly telling the repeated "crossed state line" talking point coming from the media really is about the state of things.
It is not, nor has it ever been, illegal to carry a gun across state lines in this country. Yes, you need to know the laws of the state to which you're traveling. I know that my Arizona carry permit isn't accepted in Nevada, and I know what I'm legally allowed to have and how to transport it. The only way that crossing state lines would be any kind of a relevant point in the case of Rittenhouse would have been if he bought a gun that was legal in Illinois but illegal in Wisconsin, and was therefore in violation of Wisconsin state law.
This becomes even more irrelevant to the case being that we now know that the gun never left Wisconsin. What's more, apparently Rittenhouse knew the law better than Binger did -- that's why it took several weeks of trial before everybody admitted that the illegal gun charge could be determined by simply measuring the barrel.
It's funny how much overlap there is between people who call anyone who supports more security at the Southern, national border a racist, and the people who suddenly made a big deal about a state border.
One of the nice things about these united States is the fact that we can travel state to state without having to show our papers at a check point every time we cross state lines. This is another point that apparently nobody in the corporate media brought up, or dared to think about. Okay, do you wanna go full Soviet Union and put check points at every state border so the state can track your movements and search vehicles at random? Why are you repeating "across state lines" every time you talk about this?
Did leftists finally become that passionate about borders? My drive to visit a friend for coffee yesterday was five minutes shorter than Rittenhouse's drive to Kenosha, I drove from Glendale to another part of Glendale. Either almost every corporate media network spent more than a year assuming that driving from one state to another is necessarily a long commute (well, I guess most of the commentators on CNN and MSNBC don't live in border towns) and forgot to use Google, or they're trying to push the idea that crossing the line into another state should be a big, legal deal.
This is a component of why it is so important to bring in dissenting voices, or to at least have somebody on your team who's good at playing devil's advocate -- it prevents you from saying stupid shit and repeating it over and over and over again.
This is true, but in the context of the Kyle R. trial, it is brought up as intent. That is, he intended to use the firearms offensively (ending his self-defense defense). The counter argument here is that a court of law found him to be innocent of that which means that anyone continuing the "crossed state lines" nonsense is making a slanderous and libelous statement. People can say it's their opinion all they want, but that is only valid before the trial. Once the verdict represented him as innocent, it became objective fact that he did not. Anyone saying otherwise is now legally responsible for their statement.