Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury of his peers. In the past, that would be enough to show people that he did nothing wrong. However, in the era where gun control is pushed regardless of logic, that’s simply not how it works anymore.

Not when guns were used, anyway.

Instead, many are using Rittenhouse’s use of an AR-15 in self-defense to justify gun control.

And it’s beyond stupid.

When keyboard cowboys at media outlets can fire off more than 60 words in less than a minute on the internet, should their First Amendment rights be limited? Even when those words are false and provide dangerous ammunition to rioters on our streets, looters, arsonists, and even murderers?

No. Their keyboards, like our guns, do not have brains to think with or fingers to pull their own triggers. What is required for either to function is a person. Proposing a ban on modern semi-automatic rifles because some people may misuse them simply doesn’t square with the facts or common sense.

…

While it is certainly arguable that Rittenhouse used poor judgment by even being on the streets in Kenosha, the gun-prohibition lobby is attempting to exploit this case to further its gun-ban agenda. That has been going on for many years, long before anyone ever heard of Kyle Rittenhouse. Anti-gunners don’t really care about the people he shot, only what he shot them with, and so long as it advances their narrative.

…

The media should not be so eager to strip others of their rights. Once we get into that habit, nobody’s rights will be safe, including their own.

That last part is something absolutely vital for everyone to understand.

Once you accept a restriction on a right as good and just, people will invariably use that to justify restricting other rights. If gun rights aren’t protected, then what about freedom of the press?

Some have actually tried to make that point, such as proposed legislation that would require journalists to be licensed much like someone who wants to carry a firearm.

However, sooner or later, something will happen and the public will be open to the idea. I mean, it’s not like a license tells people what they have to write or anything, right?

Yet take a look around at the hysteria surrounding disinformation. Ironic that the media that routinely pushes disinformation is leading the charge, but they are. What if people decided that journalists had to be licensed and their work fact-checked by government monitors? Sounds insane right now, but in a world where guns are restricted as heavily as some want, such a thing might not be too far off, and restrictions on gun rights could well be used to justify it.

The kick in the butt to me is that these people, including many in the media, are using the Rittenhouse case to justify gun control when he acted in self-defense.

It’s bad enough when they use an incident like Parkland to try and push their agenda, but at least that was someone using a firearm for an evil purpose. Rittenhouse used the same type of rifle to protect himself from a violent and vengeful mob that wanted to stomp him into the pavement.

He used an AR-15 for precisely what it should be used for–one of the uses, anyway–and that’s supposed to justify gun control? Honestly, it boggles the mind.