• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Consider the historical reality though; slave revolts were certainly one of the threats the founding fathers needed to arm against, despite their disinclination to pay for a standing army.
So were clashes with Indian bands and tribes as the settlers moved west. So were highwaymen and other outlaws.
There is also a notion popular on the far left (to which Truthout belongs) that police originated as slave catchers. It is usually used as part of an argument for police defunding/abolition. It is as misguided as the 2nd Amendment argument.
The idea that there was a singular "THE reason" is absurd; The idea that keeping the slaves down was not A reason is equally absurd.
A small reason perhaps.
The US in 1789 needed militias primariliy to defend against slave revolts, the British Empire, and the Native Americans. They were also to be available to deploy against any novel and/or unanticipated threats.
The Indian tribes, Brits and other European powers like the Spanish Empire were a much greater threat than possibility of slave revolts.
That Truthout wants to focus on only one such threat is unsurprising, but doesn't make their analysis wrong, just incomplete.
Focusing on one minor issue and ignoring the whole picture does make their analysis wrong.
 
Didn't you know every single antifascist is secretly part of the KDP?
Not part of KPD, but following a similar ideology. Far-left, and calling everybody they disagree with a "fascist".
So, what should we conclude about someone calling everybody they disagree with a "communist"?
 
Yeah, far-left to you just means being against fascism.
No, it doesn't. I have already explained how "antifascism" has been used by communists, and it is the same way it is used by Antifas.
Not exactly. You're either a fascist, or just being willfully ignorant of what's happening.
 
So, what should we conclude about someone calling everybody they disagree with a "communist"?
That they either do not understand what the term means, or that they are engaging in polemics. In any case, those people are the different side of the same coin.
 
Zuckerberg help me. For the first time in a decade I vented a paragraph on Facebook. It was a description of what Leopards Eating Faces means and I didn't mentioned poor, poor (oh so motherfucking poor!) Charlie, but that's it. Trumptards will be too stupid to get it.
A very appropriate reaction.

Lest we forget:

"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." - Charlie Kirk
The "God-given" part of that quote is crap, of course. And the rest of it is, admittedly a crass thing to say out loud. But isn't it implicit in the establishment of the 2nd amendment that the founding fathers knew the basic context to be true? Certainly, they had to have understood that assassinations and gun crimes were an inevitable consequence of 2A, and thus a price to pay for the "right to bear arms". Granted its a rather morbid thought, but as a society, we seem to be OK with that concept when it comes to many things. We seem to think its worth it to have a few deadly plane crashes every year in exchange for the convenience of flying. I've never heard anyone say its not. Or medicines, vaccines and surgeries that can have deadly, but rare, side effects. The list goes on.

You missed the bolded part somehow?

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.
When Scalia declared this clause to be meaningless, Republicans realized truth and facts were an unnecessary impediment to their political goals. From that point forward, any lie was acceptable if it increased their political power. It left them perfectly primed to embrace Donald Trump, a man who has no regard for the truth and his only goal in life is to increase his personal wealth.
 
I suppose congratulations are in order, this is the first time in decades inflammatory rhetoric inspired a nutjob who actually hit the target. Charlie Kirk wasn't a great choice, as he isn't an actual politician, but he is still a target. And the nutjob actually succeeded, unlike many of the others.

Call someone a Nazi often enough, someone might try to take them out. Once in a great while, they might even hit.

Nobody knows yet who the shooter is nor their motive nor inspiration. But even if it were all known, this would hardly be the only case to hit their target in decades. Having memory difficulties? It was only 3 months ago when probably the most successful assassination in the past 10 years in the US took place in Minnesota, committed by a known right-winger. Interesting that you didn't make such a haughty post then. Instead you just made your standard "both sides" whinge.

You're right, both sides have exploited and encouraged the division for a couple of decades. That's why it is so bad now.

Your memory lapse gives away your favored one side.
You go on believing that if it makes you feel better.
 
People, people!

Can we all stop getting sidetracked here and focus on the fact that Charlie's neck is missing, yet no one's sent out a search party to find it!

Focus, dammit! FOCUS!
 
Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are on their way to Orem, Utah.

That makes me feel so much better about the situation. :rolleyes:
 
People, people!

Can we all stop getting sidetracked here and focus on the fact that Charlie's neck is missing, yet no one's sent out a search party to find it!

Focus, dammit! FOCUS!
My third grade teacher had no neck. Just went straight from shoulders to head.
 
People, people!

Can we all stop getting sidetracked here and focus on the fact that Charlie's neck is missing, yet no one's sent out a search party to find it!

Focus, dammit! FOCUS!
I'd rather go in a different direction.

Man Who Was Killed By Gun said:
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.
link (him saying it at 41:30)

I suppose we can just say his death was rational.
 
The US in 1789 needed militias primariliy to defend against slave revolts, the British Empire, and the Native Americans. They were also to be available to deploy against any novel and/or unanticipated threats.
A minor note on American History. It wasn't the British, First Nations, or Slaves that led to the recycling of the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution... it was white god fearing farmers in Massachusetts (Shay's Rebellion). The problem wasn't as much the guns and militias, it was the lack of a centralized power to be able to call them forward from other states. /derail
 
Whatever the motivation of the shooter this will energize the Christian right.

Christians are under attack.

That opens the door for Trump to enhance his position with Evangelicals as a Christian savior form god.

Chaos opens the door for dictators.
Okay, so here's the deal with that. If they're going to do something they haven't already been doing, e.g. declaring martial law in certain cities, they were going to do it anyway. There are federal troops stationed in blue cities now. They're taking people off the streets indiscriminately. It's provocative. At some point, someone was going to give them their reason.
Yes and no. One thing I heard said on one program this morning, the preacher (I assume he was a preacher of some sort) noted that Kirk was for open discourse and liberal society. "The people that killed him didn't". It is a very subtle detail that they would say "the people", but the intent is far from subtle. The response from the right-wing on this guy's death is out of the ordinary. Kirk was a talker, an influencer, and he is being heralded as a combination of JFK and MLK Jr, not hyperbole, that is what some on the right are saying, what I heard on AM talking head say, not some person who called in. He is being spoken about in religious terms. This appears to have sparked a crisis of faith among those on the alt-right or they are using faith to rise up their faithful for some hostility to be named later.

And we still don't know why he was targeted. But they are feeding it like this is a siege against their lives... despite the targeting and murder of Democrats as well recently.
Assuming it was a rational anti-Republican***, the reasons for it are pretty obvious.

Of course he's being talked about as a religious figure. It's been the same with Trump for a decade now.

With respect to the American conservative siege mentality, that's been around Iran-Contra----at least that was my first experience with it. Reagan didn't do anything wrong and Ollie North was an American hero. It was the now all too familiar elevation of two criminals to saint status.

I admire you for being tough enough to listen to conservative a.m. radio. I sincerely thank you for your service.

*** We don't know if the person who killed Chuck was indeed a rationale political actor. It could be some nutjob looking to get famous. It could have been a false flag operation. I'm not putting forth the latter as something worth discussing at this point, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Authoritarian regimes have a rich history of engaging in such operations.
It could be some dad pissed that Charlie knocked his daughter up. Not that I’ve heard any such hints about St. Chuckie. I make it a point not to pay attention to anyone famous for being famous.
 
I can’t believe I have to walk a functional adult through this, but, let’s get a few basics out of the way first.
1) I’m not a functional adult. I really suck at it.
2) you are hereby freed from any obligation to dissemble or destroy my conspiracy theory. Currently the odds of it being correct are about102,349:17, but they COULD go up (or down) at any time.
1) I can’t be sure Trump didn’t have Kirk killed.
Even Trump can’t be sure of that.
Nor can you be sure he did—
Yeah, that’s true. I tried to get to a point of accepting that it was plausible that it could be true, but I couldn’t even muster the required gullibility to tell myself it was plausibly true and expect myself to believe myself.
although you seem well down the path of talking yourself into that conclusion, based on next to nothing.
Oh its flattering to hear that it sounds like that, but - it’s based on MOUNTAINS of evidence. I’d estimate 14 to 19% more mountains than the mountains of evidence for a stolen 2020 election. So much evidence It almost rivals my “Weekend at Bernie’s” theory. Yet despite the long odds, I’m not betting a penny on it.
Nah, the “Trump put out a hit on Charlie” is supported mostly because that’s what people are saying, lots of people are saying it. People tell me that’s what they hear people saying. They say it all the time - “Charlie told his friend that we both know, that Trump had bragged to him about his exploits on Jeffrey’s Island.”
Stuff like that. I don’t know why they’d say it if it wasn’t true, you know? Of course that doesn’t mean Trump didit, but SOMEONE DID!!
 
Back
Top Bottom