Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

It's not he second amendment that is the problem, it only allows for the defence of the state. It is the "reconstruction amendments" (14-16?) that came in after the civil war that expanded the rights of gun use to self-defence and defence of property (the Confederate South were terrified that the freed slaves would slaughter them). These same amendments also ban slavery, so no-one is going to mess with them.

It is unlikely that in this case, any realistic gun restrictions would have prevented the suspect from possessing a hunting rifle, in any case.
 
The wife appears to be playing this out. Appearing at a press conference dressed in a white suit avowing to keep building the movement. I thought her kids would be the No 1 priority. The photo of her over the open coffin. Surely a private affair not a photo opportunity. Sorry but not good vibes for me
 
I’m going to get pelters for this from some quarters, but I’ve got very broad shoulders.

Have had a look at this guy online in a way that I hadn’t previously. I sort of knew what he was about before this, but he’d hardly registered.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying it’s a good thing he’s dead, or that anyone deserves to die in that way, especially with their wife and kids there. Awful business all round. And this tragedy is acting as a further catalyst to the manifest and worsening divisions in US society. So unquestionably a bad thing.

But in my view, having seen him in action, he was a horrible ****. Plainly fed from negativity. Most of what came out of his mouth was designed to make the world a less happy place. And I’d say he was definitely a bully.

He was young, fit, rich, healthy with a beautiful family and a wife that adored him.

And all the **** did was moan and winge about how shit everything was. He had fuck all to complain about from where I’m standing.

Unless it was just an act…
I know I’ve said this already in here but $$$$$$$$$$$$


The monetisation of social media is the biggest issue in the world, it’s creating hateful speech from people who don’t start believing half of what they say but they need to get more and more extreme to keep taking it in.
 
It's not he second amendment that is the problem, it only allows for the defence of the state. It is the "reconstruction amendments" (14-16?) that came in after the civil war that expanded the rights of gun use to self-defence and defence of property (the Confederate South were terrified that the freed slaves would slaughter them). These same amendments also ban slavery, so no-one is going to mess with them.

It is unlikely that in this case, any realistic gun restrictions would have prevented the suspect from possessing a hunting rifle, in any case.
When in NY this year I got chatting to a retired LA cop, the conversation came to guns etc and his vue was that it’s to fight government, he then said he should be entitled to nukes because the government had them! That’s what you are up against, he seemed intelligent as well.
 
Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?


G0pItusa4AA5t-I



Sure, let's see them.
Complete crock of shit.

Three things. Firstly, road accident deaths are exactly that, accidental; a child being murdered by gunshot in school is very much intentional. Secondly, there's an assumption of risk that we all take when getting behind the wheel, we can drive as carefully as possible and still be at risk, and as adults we assume that risk voluntarily; a child shouldn't assume the risk of being shot during algebra. Thirdly, cars are manufactured for a practical use, they exist, primarily, to get people from point A to point B; firearms are manufactured to maim and kill, that's their chief purpose.

It's illogical and frankly distasteful to compare road accident deaths to school shootings.

As for Kirk's other beliefs, where do we start? He didn't trust black pilots because of the colour of their skin. He denigrated the work of MLK, an actual leader who helped reform civil rights and made America a more loving, equitable place for black people, and stated openly he was a bad man. He was a flagrant homophobe, and used hateful language against members of the LGBT community. He stoked the fires of the capitol riot, using insurrectionary language and even helped coordinate buses to get the rioters to the capitol building. He claimed girls as young as ten that are raped should be forced to give birth to the child. He proposed executions to be open for children to watch. He was a flagrant Islamophobe, and claimed all Muslims arrived in the West to infect white people. Here's a good one, he claimed empathy was for suckers; ironic, really, given half of America are now demanding an outpouring of empathy for this man. In short, he was a ****. And no, I'm not going to spend half an hour posting links, they're readily available if you choose to look for them.

Was it all a persona? Maybe, but that's on him. My opinion on him has been easily formed, and I'm comfortable with where that opinion lies.
 
The wife appears to be playing this out. Appearing at a press conference dressed in a white suit avowing to keep building the movement. I thought her kids would be the No 1 priority. The photo of her over the open coffin. Surely a private affair not a photo opportunity. Sorry but not good vibes for me
Same here. When you allow a picture of yourself slumped over the casket/body of your assassinated husband, and then actually post it for all to see, shows how fucked up people are. How does that mind work?

Like I mentioned in the other thread, it’s all about money and power.
 
I’m going to get pelters for this from some quarters, but I’ve got very broad shoulders.

Have had a look at this guy online in a way that I hadn’t previously. I sort of knew what he was about before this, but he’d hardly registered.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying it’s a good thing he’s dead, or that anyone deserves to die in that way, especially with their wife and kids there. Awful business all round. And this tragedy is acting as a further catalyst to the manifest and worsening divisions in US society. So unquestionably a bad thing.

But in my view, having seen him in action, he was a horrible ****. Plainly fed from negativity. Most of what came out of his mouth was designed to make the world a less happy place. And I’d say he was definitely a bully.

He was young, fit, rich, healthy with a beautiful family and a wife that adored him.

And all the **** did was moan and winge about how shit everything was. He had fuck all to complain about from where I’m standing.

Unless it was just an act…
Exactly, the more of his rabid right wing comments you read brings to mind that this hate creature was best buddies with Vance, Patel, Trump's son and the orange obscenity himself. Found myself wishing he'd get away as the manhunt wore on.
 
"This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose."

False. Guns are tools with multiple uses beyond killing. For example:

Self-Defense. Many people own guns to protect themselves or their families. The intent is to deter or stop a threat, not necessarily to kill. The 1995 study by Gary Kleck, estimated there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S. often without firing a shot.

Sport & Recreation.

Hunting.

Law Enforcement. Police use guns to maintain order and protect public safety, often aiming to subdue rather than kill.

"The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents."

A gun’s purpose is shaped by the user’s intent. A hammer can kill, but its primary purpose is to drive nails. Similarly, a gun’s purpose varies—whether it’s for sport, protection, or harm depends on the wielder. Claiming all gun use is about killing ignores these distinctions.

So it's not "vile" to accept there will be deaths due to car ownership but "vile" to accept that deaths will result from gun ownership? Strange logic.

"There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people"

False. As rebutted above.

"‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?

False equivalence. We would die if we didn't eat. Similarly, a gun can save someone's life from an attacker.

"Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead."

So ask someone's who's life was saved because they carried a gun. What do you think the answer would be?

KTGRA6Q.jpg



Your argument fails because it generalizes a gun's function and ignoring diverse uses, user intent, or specific designs. Guns can kill, but their purpose is not inherently or exclusively to do so.
I’m pretty sure all those you list are at least going to maim if not kill.
 
Same here. When you allow a picture of yourself slumped over the casket/body of your assassinated husband, and then actually post it for all to see, shows how fucked up people are. How does that mind work?

Like I mentioned in the other thread, it’s all about money and power.
yes the PR people have taken this over with he aim of maximising donations
 
yes the PR people have taken this over with he aim of maximising donations
on further reflection I think they have missed a real money maker. Offer the 'faithful' an opportunity to have their photo taken by the open casket. I'm sure the dimwits would be quite happy to pay 1000$ for that once in a lifetime experience
 
The wife appears to be playing this out. Appearing at a press conference dressed in a white suit avowing to keep building the movement. I thought her kids would be the No 1 priority. The photo of her over the open coffin. Surely a private affair not a photo opportunity. Sorry but not good vibes for me

She could have taken this moment to push for a shift in rhetoric and policies around gun violence , much like Emmett Till’s mother did when she used her son’s death to further push the civil rights movement. Instead, she’s choosing to inflame hatred, making subtle remarks that hint this is only the beginning of something larger.

America’s problem runs deep. I once watched a History Channel documentary that explained how the post–Civil War reconstruction actually reinforced radical racial ideologies that remains till this day. Basically, the guy who succeeded Lincoln, sympathetic to the Confederates, reinstated them to their former positions of power. He redistributed political and economic influence back to them without re-educating the younger generation about the evils of the war, while giving those who had marched their older kids off to war, a mere slap on the wrist.

In many ways, some americans argue that the South won the war ideologically, since its beliefs remain deeply entrenched in the fabric of American politics and society today.
 
Lol Nick Fuentes working overtime to try and distance himself from this. Fucking groypers what a shit name. Got 1/3 of MAGA blaming jews and the rest blaming trans or antifa all eating themselves alive on X. Still won't stop that wanker using Charlies death to push hate in London today.
 
Lol Nick Fuentes working overtime to try and distance himself from this. Fucking groypers what a shit name. Got 1/3 of MAGA blaming jews and the rest blaming trans or antifa all eating themselves alive on X. Still won't stop that wanker using Charlies death to push hate in London today.
Interestingly, Fuentes spent the better half of this year "exposing" Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, calling them zionist puppets, Now he has done a 180. These people are so slippery.
 
She could have taken this moment to push for a shift in rhetoric and policies around gun violence , much like Emmett Till’s mother did when she used her son’s death to further push the civil rights movement. Instead, she’s choosing to inflame hatred, making subtle remarks that hint this is only the beginning of something larger.

America’s problem runs deep. I once watched a History Channel documentary that explained how the post–Civil War reconstruction actually reinforced radical racial ideologies that remains till this day. Basically, the guy who succeeded Lincoln, sympathetic to the Confederates, reinstated them to their former positions of power. He redistributed political and economic influence back to them without re-educating the younger generation about the evils of the war, while giving those who had marched their older kids off to war, a mere slap on the wrist.

In many ways, some americans argue that the South won the war ideologically, since its beliefs remain deeply entrenched in the fabric of American politics and society today.
She might not realise this but she has made herself a target for the vast number of nut jobs that reside in that country. Some of them are probably of dreaming of becoming 'the man' who has ever done the double on a husband and wife and the coverage that would generate
 
Interestingly, Fuentes spent the better half of this year "exposing" Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, calling them zionist puppets, Now he has done a 180. These people are so slippery.
They make it up as they go along.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top