I know I'm sounding like a broken record; but, this is the case of the century so far and it's an entirely different observation.
It seems like the last, ditch effort of the "Hang Kyle!" crowd is to finally admit that he clearly and obviously didn't break any laws -- because he clearly and obviously didn't; but, they want to insist that that child rapist/arsonist who attacked Rittenhouse was actually defending himself because he felt threatened because Rittenhouse was openly carrying a "weapon of war".
Okay, first of all, there's a reason why there are more legal hurdles in most states to conceal carry than to open carry. Especially when I was in my Western Gun Show group, I walked into plenty of places with a gun on my hip with no problems.
So, yeah, I'm making some assumptions here; but, I think the assumptions make sense.
I'm guessing that most of the people making this argument are the same people who talk about how insane it is that they don't know who's carrying a gun at any moment.
So, these people are really just against self-defense. They're against open carry because it makes them feel uncomfortable to see a gun to the point that they feel justified in assaulting people who open carry. They're also against concealed carry because it makes them feel uncomfortable.