IT'S NOT THE GUNS

[nigel99 689]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

What makes you think that? Seems they want to try to prevent events like this, especially regarding school children.

Seriously it’s not worth arguing with cult members. Just send thoughts and prayers 

[nigel99 689]

4 hours ago, normiss said:

Charlie Kirk, shot in the neck at a public event.

I've seen the video on Twatter, I'd be amazed if he survives. It's a tough watch, seriously.

I hope this isn't that tripwire The Pedo Felon is searching for or creating.

 

Only thing I've heard of the suspect is right wing bible thumper - but it's too early to really believe much outside the video.

At least he was sincere 

[gowlerk 2,309]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Fair enough. Who are the enemies?

We know where Luigi is. But what about his brother Mario?

[JoeWeber 3,025]

Just now, nigel99 said:

Seriously it’s not worth arguing with cult members. Just send thoughts and prayers 

Not if the expectation is penetrating their beliefs and seeding in a dose of reality, especially when they start with the old dark heart of fallen man horseshit. I do think there is value in in calling it out, however. 

[David Wang 78]

I greive for the loss of life, but not for him as an individual / activist. 

I was called a Republican today because I wanted him to survive. If wanting him to survive makes me a republican...then so be it. 

 

[oldwomanc6 65]

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

[JoeWeber 3,025]

Just now, oldwomanc6 said:

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

The man himself stated publicly and on the record that some people being assassinated by firearms was a fair trade for second amendment gun rights that could be used to defend the will of God. While I continue to wish these gun deaths weren't a part of our daily life, the degree to which I am horrified by this assassination is a whole lot less than I am for the types of gun deaths he thought were the fair trade.

[oldwomanc6 65]

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The man himself stated publicly and on the record that some people being assassinated by firearms was a fair trade for second amendment gun rights that could be used to defend the will of God. While I continue to wish these gun deaths weren't a part of our daily life, the degree to which I am horrified by this assassination is a whole lot less than I am for the types of gun deaths he thought were the fair trade.

This is the transcript of the full question and answer he gave:

 

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff? CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families. Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

 

[JoeWeber 3,025]

Just now, oldwomanc6 said:

This is the transcript of the full question and answer he gave:

 

 

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff? CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families. Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

 

Thank you. Did you read this passage: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"

He was a radical evangelical Christian who believed that killing to protect God given rights as he saw them was a fair trade. No mention of needing the second to defend against rape, lynchings, pedophilia, etc. And for school shootings his plan was more guns in schools. If you want to think he was the right man for the times have at it. 

[Phil1111 1,263]

11 minutes ago, oldwomanc6 said:

This is the transcript of the full question and answer he gave:

 

 

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff? CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families. Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

 

That transcript outlines what the NRA has used as its arguments for the last several decades.

Prior to today I'd never heard of Charlie Kirk and I feel very sorry for his two innocent young children. Charlie Kirk was a political fraud. He sold "open dialogue" and open debate as his come on for his political activism. For his podcasts and his personal political business. But as a Christian nationalist, racist, misogynist, influence peddler, conspiracy peddler and anti-science MAGA trafficker. He did everything possible to steal the rights and freedoms of others. To entrench his rights and that of conservative Christians over all other Americans. 

The election was stolen,the deep state of enemy liberals must be destroyed,  Blacks are inherently violent people, if you're not for Christ the government should not be for you and on and on. This is what he peddled in his podcasts, his interviews and this new movie business. He sowed division and hate. He was no Christian, no example of a good citizen, he fed hate and race baiting.

Fuck him.

"Its not the guns" is mostly right. Political assassinations in the US arises because of the actions of redistricting. Of labelling the other party, the other group, race, etc. as the enemy. Of the use of the department of justice to attack your enemies. They arise because groups of religious and political activists are using political power to steal rights and freedoms from others who are not a part of their political group. This is not the first assassination and until the winner take all strategy ends they will become more common.

For those that incite the violence, fuck them too.

[billvon 3,173]

7 hours ago, jaybird18c said:

The radical left, very well represented here in this forum, wants to kill free speech/expression in America at all cost and leave you defenseless. Pure evil.

Given that Trump is literally banning words, and banning museums from representing history - your ire is misplaced.

Quote

Charlie Kirk was one of the best of us.

He may well have been the best of some group you are picturing.  He was not the best of Americans.  The best of Americans work to unite the country and prevent violence, not divide the country and foment violence.

[billvon 3,173]

1 hour ago, oldwomanc6 said:

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

Agreed.  There's no excuse for assassination.

[JoeWeber 3,025]

Just now, billvon said:

Agreed.  There's no excuse for assassination.

Sure there is, according to future victims, but only if as a price paid for the protection of god given rights that curtail other rights belonging to unbelievers. 

[JoeWeber 3,025]

2 hours ago, oldwomanc6 said:

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

 

Edited September 11 by JoeWeber
duplicate

[JoeWeber 3,025]

Just now, oldwomanc6 said:

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

That's akin to saying that using your cupped hand and swinging your elbow up and down to make armpit farts at the dinner table is having poor manners: it's a simple throw away statement designed for easy approval. Of course assassinations are wrong but they are not all horrifying, and in this situation, not to all Americans. I will point out the obvious here: you stated "this" assassination probably not realizing what was unsaid.

[jakee 1,648]

9 hours ago, oldwomanc6 said:

This is the transcript of the full question and answer he gave:

The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that"

 

Charlie Kirk put himself center stage in the effort to overthrow a democratically elected government in favour of a would be tyrant, and why would anyone think he wasn't ready to do it again? 

According to Kirk, his own murder is not just the cost of doing business with the second amendment, it's the reason the second amendment was written.

Edited September 11 by jakee

[gowlerk 2,309]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

According to Kirk, his own murder is not just the cost of doing business with the second amendment, it's the reason the second amendment was written.

Facebook is now being filled up with Charlie Kirk quotations. And they don't flatter him at all. Especially his views on empathy, which apparently is a made up word. I feel empathy for his wife and children, is that enough or does it mean I'm a left wing radical terrorist?

[Phil1111 1,263]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure there is, according to future victims, but only if as a price paid for the protection of god given rights that curtail other rights belonging to unbelievers. 

Yeah thats the fine line. The US civil war killed millions primarily over the issue of slavery. Now MAGA conservatives have begun the movement that slavery isn't bad, could be good and that the American south was oppressed by the war.

As such, politicians who oppress the weak, the vulnerable, weaker political groups exposing legitimate objectives. Could be identified as enemies of the state. 

IMO only in the most extreme cases is it justified. i.e. Putin, Kim, the Iranian Mullahs who control Iran, etc. For other countries that still have functioning justice systems and free elections. Individuals have to fight at the ballot box and with other weapons like dialogue.

[Phil1111 1,263]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Facebook is now being filled up with Charlie Kirk quotations. And they don't flatter him at all. Especially his views on empathy, which apparently is a made up word. I feel empathy for his wife and children, is that enough or does it mean I'm a left wing radical terrorist?

Kirk was like a MAGA virus unleashed upon the youth of America. He espoused anti-science, anti-vaccination, the election was stolen and libs are the enemy. America should only be White and Christian. Blacks and Brown people should either be slaves or subservient to the ruling White Christian class.

Empathy? Thats reserved for fellow Christians who are evangelical as well.

[olofscience 495]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

He was not the best of Americans.

I interpreted this as jaybird saying "he was the best of MAGA (or conservatism)", which makes the bar pretty low, but maybe he was, who am I to dispute that?

[olofscience 495]

14 hours ago, jaybird18c said:

I am 100% for the free speech of all.

Except for leftist free speech, right?

You need to look up what "100%" and "all" means.

[kallend 2,230]

13 hours ago, oldwomanc6 said:

All Americans should horrified by this assassination.

Where were you when Melissa Hortman was assassinated?

[kallend 2,230]

12 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The man himself stated publicly and on the record that some people being assassinated by firearms was a fair trade for second amendment gun rights that could be used to defend the will of God. While I continue to wish these gun deaths weren't a part of our daily life, the degree to which I am horrified by this assassination is a whole lot less than I am for the types of gun deaths he thought were the fair trade.

Like the 877 kids shot dead so far this year in the USA.  Not a lot of outrage from the right about them.

 

Yet an outspoken fascist gets shot and you'd think the sky fell.

[Phil1111 1,263]

The suspected shooter as disclosed by the FBI who used a older Mauser action 30-06 rifle.

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Kirk was like a MAGA virus unleashed upon the youth of America. He espoused anti-science, anti-vaccination, the election was stolen and libs are the enemy. America should only be White and Christian. Blacks and Brown people should either be slaves or subservient to the ruling White Christian class.

Empathy? Thats reserved for fellow Christians who are evangelical as well.

Hi Phil,

Re:   He espoused . . .  anti-vaccination

Does anyone know if his family were vaccinated?  According to last week's Washington Week, RFK Jr's family are.

Jerry Baumchen