If the police had been allowed to do their jobs, the rioting would have been quelled in 3-5 minutes.
Maybe not 3-5 minutes but yes your point is taken. The first night can always be semi-understood if a protest turns into a riot (depends on pre-planning, notice etc) but a second night is unforgiveable. The police should have put a stop to it with the national guard if needed.
That night was ridiculous, with huge numbers of people armed on both sides.
Again you presume that we can somehow “stop” law abiding Americans from traveling from place to place. Or stopping them from defending themselves, if attacked. These are constitutional rights. We can only stop criminals from committing crimes. We cannot stop law abiding people from doing legal things.
I think by the law Rittenhouse was rightfully found not guilty. I don't think he did anything wrong.
That doesn't stop me saying that the law that allows anyone to carry an AR15 in public, especially at a protest or riot is wrong, likewise open carrying or not a glock is nuts. I accept these are the laws, but my belief (as a crazy liberal (hell most of us by US standards) european) in this day and age guns should be limited to those living in rural areas with a specific need, & hunters. Anyone else = gun range only. Any country that needs normal people armed for self defence in a built up area doesn't have a functioning law and order / Police setup. Likewise the right to bare arms - yes yes that's been done to death. At what point does a society decide it needs to overthrow a government? What % of the population must all be in agreement before that happens? Do you really have any chance, if you truthfully believe that to be a potential thing to happens, do you really think you stand a chance against the military?
So then you have to ask yourself, what democracy, what country do you live in if you feel that is a remote possibility that makes you sacrifice so much for it's freedom (number of gun deaths). Anyway that's probably going off at a tangent but there we go.