• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Jimmy Higgins said:
They aren't sobbing over him being with Jesus, they lost a major tool for the youth vote.
Click to expand...
It's more that they've had to trade one tool for another. A dead martyr and a live demagogue are both useful. It's a big country, there's always going to be another Milo Yannapolos / Jordan Peterson / Charlie Kirk to pick up whetever the last one left off. Your youth ambassador ages out of the role eventually anyway, and Kirk was getting up there. But now they have gory footage that everyone saw snd the next spin doctor can use for the next fifty years. This is one reason why assassination is an unwise political tool for a minority faction to use, the other side only loses a moment of traction before moving on.
 
Last edited:
Elixir said:
thebeave said:
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...
Yeah the list of INADVERTANT causes of deaths is very long but assassination by gunshot is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Flying a plane requires a license. The flights are monitored by ATC. Medicines vaccines and surgeries are prescribed and performed by professionals who require training and certification.

Never quite understood these types of comparisons to guns. If guns had the same level of regulations and controls that these other examples require then this argument might hold some water.
 
TV and credit cards said:
Matthew Dowd Fired for Stooping.
“who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment we’re in.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ah, the esteemed, courageous, self-aggrandizing "Fourth Estate."

Meanwhile, the vitriolic fascism of Fox News runs unimpeded 24/7.

Yes Fourth Estate, let's not discuss what's happening in this country for fear of making authoritarians angry. A high profile conservative was murdered, but let's not examine what may have led to this. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

F'ing cunts. The whole lot.
 
Elixir said:
patchy said:
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Trump to award Presidential Medal of Freedom to Kirk.
Click to expand...
More evidence that he had Chucky neutralized.
Click to expand...

That is to strain the definition of the word “evidence” well past its breaking point.
Click to expand...
It fits perfectly though.
How can you be sure Trump didn’t have Chucky killed?
Click to expand...

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 can’t be sure Trump didn’t have Kirk killed.

Nor can you be sure he did—although you seem well down the path of talking yourself into that conclusion, based on next to nothing.

2) You’re misplacing the “burden of proof” here, by asking me to accept a premise I can’t falsify, on grounds that I can’t falsify it. Rather the burden is on the claimant (especially of an extraordinary claim (such as one positing that a sitting U.S. President ordered the assassination of one of his own most fervent supporters) to provide an extraordinary level of evidence.

You can’t prove that Charlie Kirk’s wife didn’t shoot him, which doesn’t mean I’m on firm ground to claim that she did, especially with no evidence to suggest that she did, and then challenge you to DISprove it.

3) “It” (the posthumous award of Medal of Freedom) does NOT “fit perfectly,” as you claim. The degree to which it fits at ALL is highly subjective, and wholly dependent on how hard the viewer must squint in order to see it. It certainly helps if you WANT to “see” it.

Trump’s awarding of this bauble fits much better with the speculation that he (Trump) simply wants to throw red meat to his base (and thus, benefit personally, as is always his motive) by signaling that Charlie Kirk is some kind of martyr; thus helpful to Trump’s cause in the same way that Ashlii Babbett has been. Trump is messaging here—the medal is performative theater to show “I’m with Charlie/Charlie was with me” and probably meant to in some way capitalize on Kirk’s death long enough to see a tangible effect from it in the midterm elections.

Seeing the medal as “fitting perfectly” with “Trump ordering the hit” doesn’t even make any sense… it’s a non sequitur. I’d ask you to show your work, but I’m not sure I even want to see what pretzel logic leads you to say that. I suspect it’s more of a predilection for entertaining conspiracy theories—the wilder the batter—than any kind of rational analysis on your part.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
TV and credit cards said:
Matthew Dowd Fired for Stooping.
“who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment we’re in.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ah, the esteemed, courageous, self-aggrandizing "Fourth Estate."
Click to expand...
That is fear of Trump's response. The corporate media groups have been rolling over for this guy, so he can kick them in the groin.
Colonel Sanders said:
Yes Fourth Estate, let's not discuss what's happening in this country for fear of making authoritarians angry. A high profile conservative was murdered, but let's not examine what may have led to this. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

F'ing cunts. The whole lot.
Click to expand...
Not NPR.
 
These released images of the person of interest at this point. Tall lanky white boy. Pictures should be good enough for an ID. Allegedly anti-fascist stuff scrawled on stuff found in woods.
 
patchy said:
Elixir said:
patchy said:
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Trump to award Presidential Medal of Freedom to Kirk.
Click to expand...
More evidence that he had Chucky neutralized.
Click to expand...

That is to strain the definition of the word “evidence” well past its breaking point.
Click to expand...
It fits perfectly though.
How can you be sure Trump didn’t have Chucky killed?
Click to expand...

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 can’t be sure Trump didn’t have Kirk killed.

Nor can you be sure he did—although you seem well down the path of talking yourself into that conclusion, based on next to nothing.

2) You’re misplacing the “burden of proof” here, by asking me to accept a premise I can’t falsify, on grounds that I can’t falsify it. Rather the burden is on the claimant (especially of an extraordinary claim (such as one positing that a sitting U.S. President ordered the assassination of one of his own most fervent supporters) to provide an extraordinary level of evidence.

You can’t prove that Charlie Kirk’s wife didn’t shoot him, which doesn’t mean I’m on firm ground to claim that she did, especially with no evidence to suggest that she did, and then challenge you to DISprove it.

3) “It” (the posthumous award of Medal of Freedom) does NOT “fit perfectly,” as you claim. The degree to which it fits at ALL is highly subjective, and wholly dependent on how hard the viewer must squint in order to see it. It certainly helps if you WANT to “see” it.

Trump’s awarding of this bauble fits much better with the speculation that he (Trump) simply wants to throw red meat to his base (and thus, benefit personally, as is always his motive) by signaling that Charlie Kirk is some kind of martyr; thus helpful to Trump’s cause in the same way that Ashlii Babbett has been. Trump is messaging here—the medal is performative theater to show “I’m with Charlie/Charlie was with me” and probably meant to in some way capitalize on Kirk’s death long enough to see a tangible effect from it in the midterm elections.

Seeing the medal as “fitting perfectly” with “Trump ordering the hit” doesn’t even make any sense… it’s a non sequitur. I’d ask you to show your work, but I’m not sure I even want to see what pretzel logic leads you to say that. I suspect it’s more of a predilection for entertaining conspiracy theories—the wilder the batter—than any kind of rational analysis on your part.
Click to expand...
Ooh, a predilection for entertaining conspiracy theories. Or it’s just fun to put on a red hat and JAQ off all over Glenn Beck’s stupid chalk board?
 
thebeave said:
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".
Click to expand...
Not at all.

The idea that the 2nd ammendment would grant people a right to bear self-loading firearms with rifled barrels, while acting independently of any kind of well regulated militia, is not something they could have considered, as the founding fathers were not, to my knowledge, gifted with the psychic powers necessary to predict two centuries of innovation in firearms design, and of political and social change.

Assassination and gun crime using the weapons and tactics available in 1789, and within the social structures and norms of that time, were absolutely nothing like they are today, and absolutely could not have been understood by the people of that time.

As I have said before:

bilby said:
To be honest, the "mindset of the founders" is not something that should have ANY influence on what we do today. They lived in a completely different world. One where personal arms were muzzle loading long guns and pistols with very low effective ranges and very low rates of fire; And where a nation could consider, as a reasonable option, having no standing army at all. They also lived in a time when the success of their revolt was far from assured in the long term, and there was a very real threat that the British might re-take the American colonies.

They sure as shit didn't imagine that the Bill of Rights might be used as some kind of 'holy writ', perfect and immutable - they expected that the constitution would change a LOT over time, because they were not stupid enough to think that times were unchanging.

And they certainly didn't intend their rules to apply to the question of whether people could carry self loading rifles with large capacity magazines without having any responsibility to submit to military discipline if called upon to serve.

The second amendment provides that citizens have the right to own guns in order to ensure that they are suitably equipped and trained if called upon to serve their nation. It assumes a responsibility for those who own guns to turn up at well regulated training sessions, and to obey the regulations imposed by the state militias. In short, in today's USA, it gives every citizen the right to bear arms as a part of the National Guard for his state. All further interpretation is revisionist nonsense.

But nobody cares what it says, or even what it means. It's a political toy, and you would be better off ditching it altogether. But you can't, because your nation is dominated by morons who fervently believe that 'ancient wisdom written long ago' is a route to knowledge.
Click to expand...

If the founding fathers were confronted by the (very uncommon) case of a person going crazy with a gun, they would expect the citizens to simply overwhelm him once he had fired his weapon - because having done so, he effectively disarmed himself, and was left in a revealing cloud of gunsmoke (no hiding for snipers in those days), not very far from his target (before the invention of the Minié ball, even a rifle had a very short effective range against a man-sized target), with an empty gun.

Sustained gunfire in 1789 was possible ONLY from a well trained and disciplined body of men (a "well ordered militia", if you would), who could fire in turn, and reload while others were firing.

You could use a pistol of that era in an assassination, but you would need to get very close to your victim, and would probably be more effective with a knife.

The founding fathers thought that the consequence of the 2nd ammendment would be a nation that could defend itself from the British, and from the Native Americans, and from slave revolts, without the expense of paying a standing army.

Crazy people shooting other white citizens wasn't their idea of "well regulated", and wasn't a practical option even for the craziest of their countrymen, with the arms then available.
 
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.
 
https://truthout.org/articles/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery​

The real reason for the Second Amendment’s ratification was to preserve slave patrol militias.
Click to expand...

This is not the first time I"ve read that the 2nd amendment was ratified to keep the slaves down. Some people don't want to believe this, but it makes sense to me. Our founders weren't exactly people of high moral standards and based on books and articles I've read, the gun thing was to provide militias to keep slaves from rising up.

Eventually slavery ended, but sadly guns became a big part of the culture of the US. I despise guns, although I have friends, both black and white who own guns and think it's good to have them for protection. And, btw, where are all the good guys with guns who stop the bad guy with guns? How often does that happen?

I finally got my own husband to get rid of all but one of his fucking guns and he stopped carrying many years ago. Thank Dog! A former coworker convinced him they were a good investment. Wrong! If I had magical powers, the guns would all be gone. Fucking guns and fucking slave owning founders fucked us up royally with the horrific 2nd amendment. I know some here don't agree but I don't need to read your crap, so I won't.

And weirdly enough, despite the fact that the majority of the founders were not religious believers, it's now the asshole Christian Right that values guns most of all. So, what would Jesus carry, I'd like to ask them. Kirk was a real asshole who was a big supporter of guns. In fact, he recently said something about how it's worth it to have a few gun deaths in order to give us the right to own guns. Ironic enough? Without the fucking guns, that asshole would still be alive and able to spout his hateful rhetoric. But his fucking attitude left his two kids without a father. Murder is wrong for sure, but sometimes you have to wonder if a person got what they deserved. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom