Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

To drive a car one has to learn how to use it, pass a test and register it.

Cars and guns serve distinct purposes. Driving is a privilege regulated by the state, while gun ownership - in the U.S.- is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Comparing a privilege to a right overlooks this legal distinction. Requiring tests and registration for guns could infringe on a protected freedom, unlike driving, which lacks constitutional backing.

Your analogy ignores the fact that gun ownership already faces significant regulation. Federal laws require background checks for purchases from licensed dealers and many states mandate permits, training, or registration for certain firearms or concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses often require safety courses and background checks, akin to driver’s licensing. Your statement falsely implies guns are unregulated. Your statement fails to account for the unique legal, cultural, and practical aspects of gun ownership compared to driving, thus making it flawed & overly simplistic.

 

[SWP's back]

Sadly, the foundational law restricts such regulation, to some degree.

Bullshit

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Pretty much nothing about modern life was envisaged at the time, and yet people still cling to it like it’s sacred. It’s insanity on a grand scale.

The Founding Fathers created a mechanism for changing it. That mechanism is the thing that is stopping any change. That and the fact that there are more guns than people and that feels like an insurmountable problem, esp in an era of suspicion of government and the specter of tyranny.

Throw in the fact that around 50% (200M!!!) of private firearms are concentrated with only 3% of U.S. adults—these are typically “super-owners” with large personal collections. Indeed, the U.S. has a 46% share of global civilian firearms. If you do the maths, that means that 23% of the civilian firearms IN THE WORLD are owned by 3% of U.S. adults. Given there are 263 million adults in the U.S., that means ONE QUARTER OF THE WORLDS GUNS are owned by 8 million U.S. adults.

And, if you really like maths, that means the “army” of 8 million U.S. adults owning almost half of the worlds firearms is about FOUR TIMES larger than U.S. military and larger than the standing armies of the U.S., Russia, and China COMBINED!

Numbers, eh?!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Cars and guns serve distinct purposes. Driving is a privilege regulated by the state, while gun ownership - in the U.S.- is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Comparing a privilege to a right overlooks this legal distinction. Requiring tests and registration for guns could infringe on a protected freedom, unlike driving, which lacks constitutional backing.

Your analogy ignores the fact that gun ownership already faces significant regulation. Federal laws require background checks for purchases from licensed dealers and many states mandate permits, training, or registration for certain firearms or concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses often require safety courses and background checks, akin to driver’s licensing. Your statement falsely implies guns are unregulated. Your statement fails to account for the unique legal, cultural, and practical aspects of gun ownership compared to driving, thus making it flawed & overly simplistic.

Your deployment of the term ‘overly simplistic’ at the end of your second paragraph is somewhat undermined by the contents of your first paragraph. Your inability to view gun ownership as anything other than a right is far more simplistic than anything anyone has posted about cars.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I don’t think his view is vile, just fucking stupid. His is an inane point of view. Cars are DESIGNED to do things OTHER than destroy. They provide a positive benefit that has zero to do with the danger of misusing them. Guns do one thing — they destroy. That’s it. That’s all. Do they provide security? Yes because of the threat that they destroy. Do they provide limp dicks with an inflated sense of potency? Yes because of the threat that they destroy. Do I think they should be banned? Absolutely not. Do I think guns — because they have a sole purpose related to their designed-to-destroy nature — should be the dramatically most governmentally-regulated product available to the consumer? You bet I do. Did he? No.

"I don’t think his view is vile"

I agree.

"His is an inane point of view. Cars are DESIGNED to do things OTHER than destroy."

So are guns. So explain why is his view "inane".

"They provide a positive benefit that has zero to do with the danger of misusing them."

So do guns. They are used to PROTECT the user.

"Guns do one thing — they destroy. That’s it. That’s all."

False. Firearms are used to protect people's lives without necessarily causing harm. A 1995 study by Gary Kleck estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., often involving no shots fired, only deterrence. Also, a 2013 CDC report noted that firearms are used in self-defense, and many incidents end without injury or death. Your statement's absolutism ignores these cases.

You're reducing a multifaceted tool to a single, negative outcome, disregarding all the evidence out there of many non-destructive uses, user intent, and varied contexts. Yeah, guns can destroy, but that’s not their only or universal function.

 

[SWP's back]

The Second Amendment doesn’t actually block regulation the way people often assume. Even in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which expanded individual gun rights, the Supreme Court was explicit that the right is not unlimited. The Court pointed out that bans on felons owning guns, restrictions in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and licensing requirements are all compatible with the Constitution.

It’s also worth remembering that guns are already regulated to a degree. Background checks, waiting periods in some states, bans on fully automatic weapons, and prohibitions on ownership for categories like felons and domestic abusers are all in place. If the “foundational law” truly prevented regulation, none of these measures would exist.

The vehicle comparison makes sense as well. To drive legally, you have to register your car, carry insurance, pass both written and practical tests, and regularly renew your license. Guns, which have equally serious consequences if misused, don’t face anywhere near this level of oversight. Courts have even upheld tighter restrictions on other constitutional rights, such as speech in certain contexts, so there’s no reason firearms would be uniquely untouchable.

Finally, the idea that foundational law permanently restricts change isn’t accurate. The Constitution has always been an evolving document, amendments exist precisely because society can decide to alter its foundational laws when necessary. If there were enough political will, gun regulations could be strengthened in the same way regulations have been tightened over time for vehicles, alcohol, or tobacco.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Bullshit

Note MY words…

Sadly, the foundational law restricts such regulation, to some degree.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Which part should I explain?

The Second Amendment remains one of America’s most debated constitutional provisions, serving as the legal foundation for gun ownership rights in the United States. (U.S. Congress)

The Heller and MacDonald cases make clear that prohibitions have to be very limited in scope, so as not to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of the law-abiding citizen.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Founding Fathers created a mechanism for changing it. That mechanism is the thing that is stopping any change. That and the fact that there are more guns than people and that feels like an insurmountable problem, esp in an era of suspicion of government and the specter of tyranny.

Throw in the fact that around 50% (200M!!!) of private firearms are concentrated with only 3% of U.S. adults—these are typically “super-owners” with large personal collections. Indeed, the U.S. has a 46% share of global civilian firearms. If you do the maths, that means that 23% of the civilian firearms IN THE WORLD are owned by 3% of U.S. adults. Given there are 263 million adults in the U.S., that means ONE QUARTER OF THE WORLDS GUNS are owned by 8 million U.S. adults.

And, if you really like maths, that means the “army” of 8 million U.S. adults owning almost half of the worlds firearms is about FOUR TIMES larger than U.S. military and larger than the standing armies of the U.S., Russia, and China COMBINED!

Numbers, eh?!

Oh I’m under no illusions that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, but it’s only going to get worse if things don’t change.

In fact I’ll go further and say if things do change, and by that I mean meaningful regulation, then things will still probably get worse, but at a discernibly slower rate.

 

[SWP's back]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Which part should I explain?

The Second Amendment remains one of America’s most debated constitutional provisions, serving as the legal foundation for gun ownership rights in the United States.

The Heller and MacDonald cases make clear that prohibitions have to be very limited in scope, so as not to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of the law-abiding citizen.

See above.

Also read your first three words, which are totally ignored by 2A loons.

 

[yankblue]

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?

Sure, let's see them.

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?

Sure, let's see them.

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

First, you asked where Kirk said gun deaths are acceptable in order to have an armed populace. This quote was provided. Please feel free respond to it. The wall of text is unnecessary and unrelated to his view that Americans should accept gun deaths as they're worth it to have the second amendment.

Second, comparing guns to cars is the mother of all false equivalencies, and one that only one morons like Charlie Kirk would think makes sense. A car is meant to transport things. A gun is meant to kill things. That's its sole purpose. To kill. People drown. Should we ban water? People suffocate. Should we ban air? See how that makes no sense?

As far as his other views, let's have at it. Do you believe transgender people are abomination to God and should be taken care of as they were in the 50's and 60's (which surely someone as intelligent as Mr. Kirk would know meant being a frequent target of hate crimes). Or that the civil rights act was a mistake? Or that foreigners are invading America to replace white people? Certainly as Muslims are doing in Europe, right? Or that women should reject feminism and submit to their husbands? Or implying black pilots are not qualified? Or that gays should be stoned to death as they were in biblical times?

Even if you want to hand wave that all away, he clearly wouldn't want us to feel empathy for what happened to him.

Charlie Kirk was a bad person, who took pride in being bad person, hiding behind a thin layer of pseudo intellectualist bullshit. The whitewashing of him is insane. I'm not saying his death should be celebrated. But his life, and what he represented, absolutely shouldn't be either.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Second Amendment doesn’t actually block regulation the way people often assume. Even in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which expanded individual gun rights, the Supreme Court was explicit that the right is not unlimited. The Court pointed out that bans on felons owning guns, restrictions in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and licensing requirements are all compatible with the Constitution.

It’s also worth remembering that guns are already regulated to a degree. Background checks, waiting periods in some states, bans on fully automatic weapons, and prohibitions on ownership for categories like felons and domestic abusers are all in place. If the “foundational law” truly prevented regulation, none of these measures would exist.

The vehicle comparison makes sense as well. To drive legally, you have to register your car, carry insurance, pass both written and practical tests, and regularly renew your license. Guns, which have equally serious consequences if misused, don’t face anywhere near this level of oversight. Courts have even upheld tighter restrictions on other constitutional rights, such as speech in certain contexts, so there’s no reason firearms would be uniquely untouchable.

Finally, the idea that foundational law permanently restricts change isn’t accurate. The Constitution has always been an evolving document, amendments exist precisely because society can decide to alter its foundational laws when necessary. If there were enough political will, gun regulations could be strengthened in the same way regulations have been tightened over time for vehicles, alcohol, or tobacco.

Great post, apart from the ‘license’ part.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Who knows but he's certainly no Lefty or registered Democrat.

How do you know that though?

You don’t know what his political thoughts are right now or if they’ve changed. As I said having “hey facist catch” on bullet doesn’t exactly scream he’s a republican either.

We’re just guessing at the moment

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Your deployment of the term ‘overly simplistic’ at the end of your second paragraph is somewhat undermined by the contents of your first paragraph.

Nope. Your criticism that my use of "overly simplistic" is undermined by the first paragraph misses the mark completely. My first paragraph distinguishes gun ownership as a constitutional right versus driving as a privilege - highlighting a legal nuance the original analogy ignores. This distinction is precise, not simplistic, as it addresses the core flaw in equating the two.

The second paragraph of mine reinforces this by detailing existing gun regulations and practical differences, showing the analogy’s failure to capture complexity. Calling the analogy "overly simplistic" is consistent, as it reduces a multifaceted issue to a false equivalence, ignoring legal, regulatory, & cultural intricacies outlined in both paragraphs.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The Second Amendment doesn’t actually block regulation the way people often assume. Even in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which expanded individual gun rights, the Supreme Court was explicit that the right is not unlimited.

And I didn’t say it was.

The Court pointed out that bans on felons owning guns, restrictions in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and licensing requirements are all compatible with the Constitution.

Agreed. Very limited.

It’s also worth remembering that guns are already regulated to a degree. Background checks, waiting periods in some states, bans on fully automatic weapons, and prohibitions on ownership for categories like felons and domestic abusers are all in place. If the “foundational law” truly prevented regulation, none of these measures would exist.

Perhaps it was “to some degree” that confused you?

The vehicle comparison makes sense as well. To drive legally, you have to register your car, carry insurance, pass both written and practical tests, and regularly renew your license. Guns, which have equally serious consequences if misused, don’t face anywhere near this level of oversight. Courts have even upheld tighter restrictions on other constitutional rights, such as speech in certain contexts, so there’s no reason firearms would be uniquely untouchable.

“In certain contexts”…Ah, now you’re agreeing with me. Excellent!

Finally, the idea that foundational law permanently restricts change isn’t accurate.

Who asserted this???

The Constitution has always been an evolving document, amendments exist precisely because society can decide to alter its foundational laws when necessary. If there were enough political will, gun regulations could be strengthened in the same way regulations have been tightened over time for vehicles, alcohol, or tobacco.

Asked and answered. Now, try enacting a Constitutional Amendment, esp 1A or 2A, and you’ll prove my point….and the one you finally got to, even though equating gun rights to the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of cars, booze or smokes is an oft used canard. (See JTU’s comments above!)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

How do you know that though?

You don’t know what his political thoughts are right now or if they’ve changed. As I said having “hey facist catch” on bullet doesn’t exactly scream he’s a republican either.

We’re just guessing at the moment

I hear that’s a gamer phrase.

Have to say, I’m shocked that a 22 yr old still living with Mum and Dad might be a gamer, aren’t you? I’d be interested to know his online time playing which games!!!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nope. Your criticism that my use of "overly simplistic" is undermined by the first paragraph misses the mark completely. My first paragraph distinguishes gun ownership as a constitutional right versus driving as a privilege - highlighting a legal nuance the original analogy ignores. This distinction is precise, not simplistic, as it addresses the core flaw in equating the two.

It’s the fact you view it as immutable because some slave owner wrote it down 250 years ago that makes your viewpoint simplistic.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Assuming the shooting was intentional, killing or wounding people with a gun is illegal, unless you can successfully raise a defence to that killing or wounding, so you’re both right as it happens.

Not so quick!

The word “only” means his assertion is factually incorrect, as I pointed out, and you rightly state…then refute?!?!?!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It’s the fact you view it as immutable because some slave owner wrote it down 250 years ago that makes your viewpoint simplistic.

One man’s simplistic is another man’s reality in fact.

Regardless of how one personally feels about strict adherence to a 200+ year old document, ignorance of those laws excuses no-one.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not so quick!

The word “only” means his assertion is factually incorrect, as I pointed out.

I was plainly referring to the second part of his sentence, not the first.

I accept that guns are for more than just killing. They can serve as a deterrent, although their deterrent effect is rooted in their capacity to kill.

 

[idahoblues]

Most people I know who shoot their first game animal have serious misgivings at the time ( myself included) and often botch the shot or fail to pull the trigger at all. Does beg the question how someone of his age pulled off a successful shot at a person from that range.
Been repeating that it was a 30.06, that particular round drops a lot in a short distance, major adjustments have to be made to compensate for that, a .270 would be a way better and easier rifle imo