Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

Bazzmand Show said:
His wife’s little speech last night, was probably the most unhinged thing I’ve seen that’s come out of it.

Literally zero interest in doing saying anything positive, just spouting more of her husbands absolute tripe.
Click to expand...
Looks like she will carry on the grift.
 
DelToro said:
Can’t work out whether Jim Tolmies Underpants is a Russian bot, a WUM or a half wit.

I’m going for a mixture of the last 2.
Click to expand...
He's a old school journalist who is trained in being able to think critically.

A skill many of us, including myself could improve on when arguments now seem to be about our beliefs and perceptions of reality trumping hard factual evidence. Even when we see it with our eyes. Our belief system then goes into denial and we find a way to deny it and embolden our own selfish belief systems.

The joys of the internet and social media.

Pushing us more into our own little tribal boxes where we are always right and anyone that challenges us is always wrong.

I'm starting to think the human race will become extinct because of stupidity.
 
DelToro said:
Can’t work out whether Jim Tolmies Underpants is a Russian bot, a WUM or a half wit.

I’m going for a mixture of the last 2.
Click to expand...
He quoted my posts twice and then just pretended I didn’t write what I wrote. It’s fucking weird.

But apparently, when I shoot a target like a ten-point buck, or a paper shadow outline of Osama Bin Laden, the bullet just kisses the fuckers on the forehead instead of hurting them.
 
Last edited:
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
Where have I said that’s impossible?

There’s a bullet with the ‘hey facist catch’ and the person being killed is a republican. Do you not think it’s pretty reasonable to think the murder might have a different political opinion?

I’d also like to know if you are a republican, why would you shoot Charlie Kirk? I’m genuinely interested to know the reasons?

We’re all just guessing at the moment
Click to expand...
Correct, you didn't say it was impossible, you only insinuated it would be unlikely. It wasn't a criticism of you or your post (which I agree with); it was just a broader observation (way beyond this particular case) that we no longer tend to associate Republicans as being against fascism.
 
They really came out with their "radical left" solution far too early and are now hunting about for a credible story. Don't like what you here? Hang around we will have one that fits your narrative soon

 
Right its a crime scene - there was a murder in the town where I live 2 years ago. A street was shut off for two days even though the death was inside a premises and there were forensics in white suits going up the street on hands and knees looking for any evidence. Right after the body was rushed off to hospital a guy was able to walk up to the table and pass out MAGA hat merch then this happened. Its so fucking amateurish OR they don't care because they know the back story and are just cleaning up after themselves

 
All this talk of guns.

Wonder what Freud thought about them.

Wasn't it something to do with the size of one's nose.
 
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
"Because of the power they have to harm their target. That’s their ONE AND ONLY purpose for existence."


This is a mischaracterization of purpose. The claim that the "ONE AND ONLY purpose" of firearms is to harm or destroy is an oversimplification which I have had to point out numerous times to various posters promoting the same illogical fallacy.

Firearms serve MULTIPLE purposes beyond destruction, including self-defense, sport, hunting, a& historical preservation. This narrow focus ignores the broader utility and cultural significance of firearms. If the primary purpose of a firearm is destruction, how do you account for its use in competitive sports like skeet shooting or target practice, where the goal is precision and skill rather than harm?

Your argument that the power of firearms as defensive tools lies solely in their destructive capability overlooks other factors, such as deterrence & the psychological impact of their presence. The mere possession of a firearm can deter potential attackers without any shots being fired. If the defensive power of a firearm is solely due to its destructive capability, how do you explain instances where the mere display of a firearm prevents an attack without any harm being inflicted?

Your comparison of firearms to hammers or other household items is a false equivalence. While a hammer can be used for multiple purposes (like construction or repair), firearms are designed with specific functions in mind, but this does not negate their defensive utility. Moreover, many tools, including knives & vehicles, can be used destructively, yet they are not regulated to the same extent as firearms. If firearms should be regulated aggressively due to their destructive potential, why are other potentially dangerous tools, such as knives or vehicles, not subject to similar levels of regulation, despite their capability to cause harm?

Your argument for "aggressive, radical regulation" conflicts with the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep & also bear arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right is fundamental & subject to certain limitations, but not to the extent of rendering it meaningless. If firearms are to be regulated to the "absolute hilt" as you believe, how do you reconcile this with the Supreme Court's rulings, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) & New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which affirm an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defence?

Your claim also ignores the historical context of the Second Amendment, which was designed to ensure a citizen's ability to defend themselves against tyranny & personal threats. This right has been upheld as a cornerstone of American liberty. Given the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual liberty & self-defense, how can you justify regulations that might effectively nullify this right, especially when other constitutional rights are not subject to such stringent limitations?

Your assertion that no other product offers the same "social good/social ill trade-off" as firearms is debatable. Many products, such as alcohol, prescription drugs & even social media, have significant social ills but are not regulated to the extent proposed for firearms. The social good of firearms, including self-defense & personal security, must be weighed against their potential for harm. If the social ill of firearms justifies aggressive regulation, why are other products with comparable or greater social ills, such as alcohol (which contributes to thousands of deaths annually), not regulated to the same degree?

Comparing firearms to nuclear missile silos is a false analogy. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction with no practical defensive use for individuals, whereas firearms are tools for personal defence & other legitimate purposes. The scale & context of these weapons are vastly different. Since nuclear missile silos aren't comparable to personal firearms in terms of scale, purpose & individual use, how does your analogy support the argument for regulating firearms to the same extent as weapons of mass destruction?

There's also plenty of empirical evidence which suggests that stringent gun regulations don't always correlate with lower rates of gun violence. Countries with strict gun laws, such as Brazil & Mexico, still experience high levels of gun-related crime, while others with more lenient laws, like Switzerland, have low rates of gun violence.

If aggressive regulation is the solution, why do countries with strict gun laws still experience high rates of gun violence - & conversely - why do some countries with more lenient laws have low rates of gun violence?
Click to expand...
Why say a point in several words when you can use a thousand.
 
robbieh said:
All this talk of guns.

Wonder what Freud thought about them.

Wasn't it something to do with the size of one's nose.
Click to expand...
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Deflection. The claim was: "The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose" and all my examples proved otherwise.
Click to expand...
You are unquestionably correct on this point. But it doesn’t make you a wizard.
 
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
hey-guys-this-is-the-actual-quote-v0-8rvjh731jrof1.png
Click to expand...
You cannot possibly claim with a straight face that he doesn’t look at least bi-curious in that photo.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Yeah, my comment was callous. She just lost her husband in a horrible, brutal, tragic fashion. She’s a widow with two small children. I suppose one should cut her some slack, the five stages of grief being what they are.
Click to expand...
Given what happened, she’s got to deserve the benefit of the doubt on this. In terms of her genuine motives.
 
TinFoilHat said:
He's a old school journalist who is trained in being able to think critically.

A skill many of us, including myself could improve on when arguments now seem to be about our beliefs and perceptions of reality trumping hard factual evidence. Even when we see it with our eyes. Our belief system then goes into denial and we find a way to deny it and embolden our own selfish belief systems.

The joys of the internet and social media.

Pushing us more into our own little tribal boxes where we are always right and anyone that challenges us is always wrong.

I'm starting to think the human race will become extinct because of stupidity.
Click to expand...

It’s posts like this that remind me over the years I’ve always liked you as a poster even if we often disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top