We have arrived at the rabbit hole. We have the testimony of Oswald's own wife that he practiced with the rifle and that he told her that he did so. Your rebuttal is that she could be lying despite there being apparent no reason for her to lie about him practicing with the rifle. It is not a crime to practice firing your rifle. We have the logical inference that if Oswald ordered a rifle with his limited means and was so excited to get it that he posed for pictures, that he intended to use it. There is otherwise no explanation for ordering the rifle.
We have arrived at the rabbit hole. Looks like you already went over the edge.
We have the testimony of Oswald's own wife that he practiced with the rifle and that he told her that he did so.Strange wording, "his own wife" as opposed to "his wife," which should have sufficed. Doubling down on her claim ("and") doesn't improve her credibility. She's a known liar.
Your rebuttal is that she could be lying despite there being apparent no reason for her to lie about him practicing with the rifle. I pointed out your incorrect use of "confirm." I didn't speculate about her
intend motive. Her claim remains unconfirmed.
It is not a crime to practice firing your rifle. Strawman, I didn't claim that.
We have the logical inference that if Oswald ordered a rifle with his limited means and was so excited to get it that he posed for pictures, he intended to use it.Wrong, we have Richard's flawed inference. What you have at best is
intent intend to pose in front of a camera with a rifle.
There is otherwise no explanation for ordering the rifle.I just told you there is; you fail again.