Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Colonel Sanders]

This is the kind of shit that has emboldened conservatives-turned-full blown fascist.

Really?

Where was this outrage and conciliatory respect from the right when Gretchen Whitmer was the target of a plot to kidnap, rape and murder her? Where was this sympathy when John Hoffman was murdered? What about Melissa and Mark Hortman?

That was wrong too, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Oh poor Charlie. Poor, poor, Charlie. Children murdered in schools are worth keeping military grade rifles available to the public.

Military-grade rifles are not available to the public. For regular school shootings, and other indoor shootings, handguns are preferable anyway. And for long distance there are hunting rifles with more firepower than an AR15 - for example 308 Winchesters.

Mental health facilities cost too much-----you know the ones that might've prevented some school shootings. It's alllllll good until it happens to poor motherfuckin' Charlie.

This is bipartisan. Conservatives because of the cost, but progressives did not like people getting involuntarily committed.

Liberals are afraid of the backlash? I've elucidated many times over why we're perceived as weak and easy to oppress, so I won't go through it again. Suffice it to say the backlash wouldn't be such a grave concern if the fascists had cause to be concerned.

I do not think violence it justified by speech you or I disagree with.

Don't even play the gun game with me. You're in over your head, you just don't know it.

Anyway, "two wrongs don't make a right?"

1. Okay mom.

2. Two wrongs in a certain context can make an important point.

So at what point should speech foment a violent reaction?

Is it when rights are lost?

Is it when people on the other side of the political system are murdered or are attempted to be murdered?

Is it when federal troops are stationed in cities that didn't vote for a grease-painted, monkey-brained sack of shit in an ill-fitting suit?

Is it when said monkey-brained fuck's supporters (see Charlie Kirk) espouse the same authoritarian bullshit?

Just sit back liberals, relax. It hurts less and won't take as long if you don't put up a fight.

 

[blastula]

Remembering the honorable Mr. Kirk.

 

[robnisch]

 

[Derec]

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.

It's well within its effective range, but a bigger caliber would make it easier.

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),

That's an impressive shot, but it also required the target to be stationary for several seconds it takes for the bullet to travel.

using a Snipex Alligator rifle to eliminate two Russian soldiers.

Now that's a BFG! It fires a 14.5×114mm. That's even bigger than a .50 BMG.

This is all another baby step down the road to authoritarian global government. Sad to witness.

It is certainly not good, for all the mirth some people derive from it.

 

[blastula]

What a cuck.

 

[Derec]

Don't even play the gun game with me. You're in over your head, you just don't know it.

You already made a mistake with "military grade" BS.

Anyway, "two wrongs don't make a right?"

Yes. However, three lefts do.

1. Okay mom.

Cheap insult.

2. Two wrongs in a certain context can make an important point.

The only point they are making is that they are both wrong.

So at what point should speech foment a violent reaction?

None of it.

Is it when rights are lost?

Charlie Kirk's speech was responsible for you losing rights? And killing him will restore them?

Is it when people on the other side of the political system are murdered or are attempted to be murdered?

Happens on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is wrong in each case.

Is it when federal troops are stationed in cities that didn't vote for a grease-painted, monkey-brained sack of shit in an ill-fitting suit?

How does that justify murder of a commentator you disagree with?
And national guard has been deployed in DC, which has a special status as a federal district.

Is it when said monkey-brained fuck's supporters (see Charlie Kirk) espouse the same authoritarian bullshit?

Again, disagreeing with somebody does not give anybody the right to murder him or her.

Just sit back liberals, relax. It hurts less and won't take as long if you don't put up a fight.

There is nothing liberal about murdering people you disagree with. There is nothing remotely liberal about murdering somebody because he made controversial statements about matters political. In fact, being able to discuss these matters freely is at the basis of a liberal society. Take that away, and it crumbles, no matter what you call yourself (modern American liberals are often "liberal" in name only).

 

[Derec]

[affirmative action picture]

Kirk certainly is making a good general point about racial preferences. These policies give a tremendous advantage in admissions based on skin color and ethnicity. That's how a midwit like Joy Reid could attend Harvard and a dimwit like SJL (truly one of the dumbest congresscritters in modern times) could go to NYU and Yale.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I heard of Kirk years ago because just like Ray Comfort he engaged in the idiotic idea that the Banana proves God, and was so ignorant as to not know that bananas as we know them were created by man, by genetic manipulation of original fruit, which had different appearance and colour (purple).
My recent exposure to him has been on youtube, where he posts videos (I don't watch these), but many skeptics do videos refuting his rubbish and I have watched some of these.
He is a fairly minor entity of the right, so his shooting was probably mainly a target of opportunity. Not to engage in conspiracies, but his murder could also be a false flag operation designed to further enflame an already unstable MAGA mob.

EDIT: I got my Kirks mixed up; it was Kirk Cameron with the banana. They are easy to mix up, as both have same fan base.

 

[Arctish]

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

 

[thebeave]

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.

 

[pood]

[affirmative action picture]

Kirk certainly is making a good general point about racial preferences. These policies give a tremendous advantage in admissions based on skin color and ethnicity. That's how a midwit like Joy Reid could attend Harvard and a dimwit like SJL (truly one of the dumbest congresscritters in modern times) could go to NYU and Yale.

No he’s not making a good point. He was a racist, sexist goon,

 

[pood]

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

And now you’re one of ‘em, Charlie.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is the 200 yard distance claim accurate?

520 feet.

 

[pood]

[affirmative action picture]

Kirk certainly is making a good general point about racial preferences. These policies give a tremendous advantage in admissions based on skin color and ethnicity. That's how a midwit like Joy Reid could attend Harvard and a dimwit like SJL (truly one of the dumbest congresscritters in modern times) could go to NYU and Yale.

More of your usual ignorant bleating about “racial preferences.” Those preferences have always been, and continue to be, given to white men. Without them, Trump and Kirk, both dumb as a box of rocks and evil to boot, would have been relegated to the deserved status of utter nobodies.

 

[pood]

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

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.

 

[pood]

Notice the false dichotomy in the shit head’s claim reported by Newsweek above. It’s not a choice between gun deaths and keeping the Second Amendment. It’s a choice about whether we will have needless deaths or whether we will have sensible gun laws to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would mow down school children, among other atrocities. The Second Amendment does ot preclude such laws and, in fact, speaks of people having guns in the context of well-regulated militias.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

Yeah no one should ever attempt to reduce deaths for any reason and the parents of school shooting victims should just be fine with it. Or something.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What conservatives think should be said to parents of school shooting victims: "there must be a certain number of gun deaths every year. Charlie Kirk was an American hero."