• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Elixir said:
laughing dog said:
If Kirk was the intended target, that’s pretty good shooting - a kill at 200 yards.
Click to expand...
Not an unusual skill in still air, depending on the weapon. The way it blew his neck open looked like a high velocity round. 200 yards with a .scoped .223 isn’t exactly a gimme, but close to it for a good shooter.
The longest confirmed sniper kill was reportedly by an anonymous Ukrainian sniper on August 14, 2025, at a distance of over 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles), using a Snipex Alligator rifle to eliminate two Russian soldiers.
Click to expand...
Was Charlie’s killing from 500+ feet a record distance for an American political killing?
(Assuming it wasn’t a jealous boyfriend of some chick who had a crush on Charlie)

This is all another baby step down the road to authoritarian global government. Sad to witness.
Click to expand...
I suppose the shooter was aiming for the head and missed in a way that bailed him out? Do hunters aim for the head? Why not aim for the big part? Is 200 yards a difficult shot for the average hunter?
 
thebeave said:
Arctish said:
Colonel Sanders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
At least you say it out loud now.
 
thebeave said:
Arctish said:
Colonel Sanders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
pood said:
thebeave said:
Arctish said:
Colonel Sanders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
We also have various safety regulations to reduce deaths for other reas- oh yeah conservatives don't care about those.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derec said:
Elixir said:
Not an unusual skill in still air, depending on the weapon. The way it blew his neck open looked like a high velocity round. 200 yards with a .scoped .223 isn’t exactly a gimme, but close to it for a good shooter.
Click to expand...
It's well within its effective range, but a bigger caliber would make it easier.
Click to expand...
What Col. Sanders said. You should just STFU instead of parading your ignorance.
Remember - it was just a couple of years ago that you thought a .223 was the same as a .22
The depth of your firearms expertise is already the stuff of legend around here.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I'm wondering if we'll ever know the shooter. The idiots in charge of the FBI won't help the investigation, and it this was a one-fer... for whatever reason, there might be almost nothing to go off of.
Click to expand...
S’posedly there’s lots of evidence and the shooter would normally be found within hours or a couple of days at most.
But the clown car of trumpsuckers now pretending to run the LE game in this country, may very well lack the required competence to ever find the shooter.
Plus, if they DO identify the shooter and it turns out to be another right wing nutjob, they’ll probably Oswald him.
 
steve_bank said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

It's like a perversion of Bill Bixby's line from The Incredible Hulk when he says "Don't make me angry: You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." In the present political climate though, it'd be like Bixby's character pushing nerds around and taunting him with the line. Eventually some nerd's going piss him off, thereby giving evil Bixby an excuse to transform into the Hulk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
Colonel Sanders said:
steve_bank said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZiprHead said:
Elixir said:
Not an unusual skill in still air, depending on the weapon. The way it blew his neck open looked like a high velocity round. 200 yards with a .scoped .223 isn’t exactly a gimme, but close to it for a good shooter.
Click to expand...
An expert on tv said it looked like a 308 or 30.06 to him. So a deer rifle with a well sighted scope could do it.

And for all we know maybe it was supposed to be a headshot and he missed.
Click to expand...
It depends on the angle. In this case it sounds like the shooter was shooting from an elevated position. If the shooter was compensating for the elevated angle and attempting to hit center mass (the solar plexus area), but compensated incorrectly, then that's why the neck shot happened.

It's unlikely the shooter was going for a head shot because it's much more difficult to hit due to its small area size and relatively frequent movement.

There's also the zeroing factor. Different people disagree on what distance any given weapon should be zeroed to. For common bolt action hunting rifles like the .30-06 or .308 WinMag, many will set for 400 yards and then compensate up or down from there if the target is inside or outside the 400 yard range. Thus, if this guy set to 100 and if the target was 200, then he would've had to slightly compensate for the drop. If that's the case it seems like he probably overcompensated, hence the neck shot.

It sounds complicated but it really isn't. 200 yards with a scope, whether or not its zeroed to that distance, still leaves lots of room for error. In short, a very basic knowledge of marksmanship would allow someone to make that shot.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Colonel Sanders said:
steve_bank said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
...
It sounds complicated but it really isn't. 200 yards with a scope, whether or not its zeroed to that distance, still leaves lots of room for error. In short, a very basic knowledge of marksmanship would allow someone to make that shot.
Click to expand...

Emphases added. I agree with the last part. In basic training with an M16 (no scope, just sites), our targets had a large range with the shortest being 50 yards or meters away and we compensated by slightly downward aim, at the furthest distance, like say 300 yards or meters (don't remember which one), we compensated by shooting slightly above the target. And of course, the rifles were slightly adjusted for ourselves or at a minimum we got used to them which would also be the case here. The 50 (yard or meter) targets were extremely easy. The 300 were harder but not impossible and actually I was good at hitting the far ones. 200 yards out was in-between somewhere, probably easy-to-medium target. Now this was with an old M16 that was reused each session of basic training across generations of recruits and with no scope. Compared to a modern rifle with a scope and a person who had some practice with the rifle, this would be an easy target on a shooting range with such a weapon and practice--the complications being mostly real-life situations, like trying to stay hidden, taking the shot quickly so no one might notice, weird possible angle (not sure), and perhaps wind (unknown).
 
Colonel Sanders said:
*** 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.
Click to expand...

It also could have been some love triangle thing and I agree that discussing these possibilities at this point is not worth discussing.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Colonel Sanders said:
steve_bank said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are discounting the escalation of the imagery and rhetoric. Yes, Trump is heralded by the alt-right as some sort of saintly being, which one day maybe people will be able to explain to me. Kirk was just an influencer. A highly charismatic one, but still the reaction to his death, Jesus, MLK, JFK all being mixed in with him, as well as the attempt to frame the liberals for his death by the President among others, this is at a much more dangerous stage than it has been.

Yes, this movement has existed for a while, but now days, they say all the quiet stuff aloud. That is what Kirk did, he normalized far right extremism with a new generation.
Colonel Sanders said:
I admire you for being tough enough to listen to conservative a.m. radio. I sincerely thank you for your service.
Click to expand...
It is good intel.
 
pood said:
thebeave said:
Arctish said:
Colonel Sanders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Don't get caught up in that shit. It's a bad faith argument they've been making for decades now. The idea that the founders contemplated semi-auto rifles for daily use by anyone that could pony up the money for one is something that's not worth entertaining.

When I was in law school our constitutional law professor punished us for being not being up to speed on the fucking Commerce Clause by forcing us to read Scalia's tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment. He dared us to try and make sense of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom