Domestic violence, Gun Regulation, and yet another reason that "Gun rights" is a fallacious concept.

 One of the many reasons I don't identify with people in the US who like to claim they are "conservative" is that they aren't. There are a lot of issues with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions that a true conservative would have problems with: the primary one being that he took a deadly weapon into that situation. He is quite lucky that his legal problems were the only fallout from his idiocy.

That said we have a lot of fun with constitutional interpretation if we include the “domestic violence clause” (Article IV, Section 4) for a couple of reasons. First off, the trend is to use popular meanings of terms such as “bear arms”. In this case “domestic violence” means something drastically different today from what the founders intended, which is a bunch of people deciding to overthrow the government.

Kyle Rittenhouse's unilateral action of going to Kenosha with an intent of exercising "self-defence" is not the intent of the US Constitution, which makes it clear that only an official band, the militia, are supposed to do that. Please don't comment until after you have read Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) and understood it. Also, look at US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, which are the miltia clauses and understand their relationship to other clauses in  the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14, Article II, section ii, and Article III, Section iii. But back to Article IV, Section iv:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This doesn't deal with spouse battering. Instead it is discussing the people who for whatever reason have decided that the US is a tyranny and wish to use violence to overthrow it. The Constitution makes it clear that it was created to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Unfortunately, most people can't get past the first three words, which is amusing since anyone familiar with the Constitution's drafting and adoption know it was anything but a popularly written document.

Anyway, like calling an unauthorised gathering of armed people a militia, the US Constitution is pretty clear that having a gun for the purpose of "fighting tyrannical government" isn't intended in any way. As the US constitution says in Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You can't make it any clearer than that.

Would the Conservatives who are praising Kyle Rittenhouse have supported the British who shot during the "Boston Massacre"?

 Fair question--especially given that the British were technically the people charged with preserving the peace at the time. Not to mention it seems that the British and colonists were closer than most people realise at that point in the move towards Independence. See this Boston Magazine article.

On the other hand, the use of deadly force was not a first option in self-defence at the time the founders were alive. That meant that the British soldiers would have had to have done all they could to de-escalate or remove themselves from the situation before deadly force would have remotely been acceptable. When I say that, I mean that deadly force would still be unlawful had there been lesser means to have stopped the threat.

I should add that some other nations require that the police and other security forces use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. I talk about this in Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided.

Let's toss in there was a defence:

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

The outcome was Captain Preston was found not guilty. The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.

See also:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

Defund the Police, Get a Kyle Rittenhouse

 Art. 12. La garantie des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.

XII. A public force being necessary to give security to the rights of men and of citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is intrusted.

Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

What Kyle Rittenhouse did was wrong. That is travelling to another jurisdiction to "preserve the peace". He was lucky that he wasn't shot by the actual militia, or National Guard (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), for being on the street with a weapon.[1] On the other hand, I understand why he did what he did.

The Document that I quote above is contemporary to the US Constitution and is equally influential on the Constitutions of other nations beside France and former French Colonies.  There are parallels between the two documents, but the most important piece of the Constitution tends to be neglected. That is the preamble. In other laws, there is a statement of purpose, or why the document was adopted. The US Constitution states it was adopted for the purposes of:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution DID NOT repeal previous sections of the Constitution, which describes the roles of  the militia as:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And while the uneducated like to claim membership in the militia as members of an "unorganised militia", that is the equivalent to saying that being subject to the draft makes one a member of the US Military. In other words, the "unorganised" miltia is a body which can be called into service under the call up provisions of state laws. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

His heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. 

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
  

I get self-defence, especially when people talk about "defunding the police"

I did a couple of posts titled "Cringeworthy, But Understandable" about Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the couple who defended their home in a gated community against BLM trespassers with an AR-15. Almost two months later, Kyle Rittenhouse goes to Kenosha, WI in a completely misguided and illegal act to travel to a city that was suffering from "unrest" caused by "peaceful protests".

Straight off, what Rittenhouse did was not only illegal, but totally wrong.

On the other hand, I get why he would do it. 

What a lot of people who want to "defund the police" don't get is that one of the purposes of a government is to provide order. It isn't stated  in the US Constitution as openly as this is in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Article 12 states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

The US Constitution talks about the common defence, suppressing insurrection, and "domestic violence". But the constitution makes it clear that the militia is supposed to be the body that is the one suppressing insurrection (Article I section 8, clause 15), but that body is the one authorised by congress (Article I section 8, clause 15 and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its existence. 

The issue is who is going to keep the order if the police or militia/national guard aren't doing that job? Or at least it looks as if they aren't able to do that job.

What makes me different from a lot of other people on the left is that I believe in the military and the police. They are necessary evils. But they are evils which, as was stated in the literature surrounding the Second Amendment and US Constitution's drafting need to be "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".

This is why a strong government should have a police force which is accountable, but probably not to the court of public opinion. 

I wonder if a lot of the cheering for the verdict in the Chauvin trial is like that from Greg Gutfeld:

The verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial is a great relief. I say that for cynical, sad, selfish reasons, because I knew that if it went the other way, my city would have been in flames. I know Chauvin is guilty, but I wonder if it's normal for a country to be so worried about unrest no matter what the outcome of a trial is. I know I was, because I've seen this before.

I wasn't sure about Greg Gutfeld, but I get him even if we are politically opposites. I could probably have a discussion with him without wanting to punch him out, but there would be a lot of shouting.

But, Greg says what's on his mind, and so do I, which is why I like him. I'm not going to wear kinte cloth, get on my knee, and virtue signal: I'm going to say what I think. 

Or know.

And the BLM thing has sold way more guns and is far more counterproductive than productive. (Hey Greg, move to Philly where you can own an AR-15).

Patrisse Khan Cullors goes and buys a few couple of million dollar houses in white neighbourhoods. She's a Groucho Marxist if she is one at all. But it shows how hypocritical the BLM crowd happens to be. She's destroying the people she claims to want to believe in.

Sadly, we've normalized the threat of violence as a method to exact justice. After an event occurs, mayhem is now like a weather pattern -- "74% chance of arson, 90% chance of assault. Better board up those windows." Worse, our acceptance of anarchy has made it a wonderful opportunity for looters to step in and decry racial injustice by stealing a rack of expensive jackets.

So when something like the Chauvin story comes along, it's not just about justice. It's about how we process information, how we process our anger, and truth. If justice is predicated on a sense that mayhem can and will occur if it doesn't go a certain way, then we're all screwed for good.

Yep. What happened wasn't good, but I don't think we will have a serious discussion of this issue.

Unless more Kyle Rittenhouses come out of the woodwork to fill the vacuum. Is that what people want?