Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

"Therefore anti-fascism bad" the right will say.

Antifa doesn't have a monopoly on anti-fascism.

 

[Arctish]

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".

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:

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.

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

I am all for better regulation. I am, however, against banning certain categories of firearms based on things like how they look, or based on them having a similar name as a heavy gun firing big bullets that an idiot legislator once held.

 

[Derec]

"Therefore anti-fascism bad" the right will say.

Antifascism does not mean just opposition to fascism. It's a particular ideology associated with communism.
It goes back to the "Antifaschistische Aktion", a paramilitary arm of the German Communist Party before WWII.

They were the OG Antifas.
The use of "antifascism" was widespread among actually existing socialist countries of Eastern Europe, and it was use to denounce the capitalist West. For example the "antifascist protection rampart", aka the Berlin Wall.

Berlin Wall was designed to protect the workers' and peasants' paradise of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik from the decadent fascist wastelands of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[Derec]

This is not the first time I"ve read that the 2nd amendment was ratified to keep the slaves down.

Consider the source though: Truthout is hardly reliable.

 

[Derec]

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

That he may be, but that is not mutually exclusive with him making a good point on a particular issue.

More of your usual ignorant bleating about “racial preferences.”

Nothing "ignorant" about acknowledging that so-called "affirmative action" policies lowered the standards based on race, ethnicity as well as gender.
Take Harvard, where Joy Reid went.

Black, Hispanic and Indian students were admitted with significantly lower SAT scores than white and Asian ones.

Those preferences have always been, and continue to be, given to white men.

Bullshit.

 

[Derec]

When people wear the Antifa symbols *(that are almost identical to those used by the KPD "Antifaschistische Aktion") or "antifascist" slogans while assassinating people for having a different opinion, what meaning of "antifascism" do you think they may be operating under?

 

[blastula]

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.

 

[Derec]

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

What Col. Sanders said. You should just STFU instead of parading your ignorance.

You disagree that, all things being equal, a bigger caliber makes long-distance shooting easier? Based on what exactly?

Remember - it was just a couple of years ago that you thought a .223 was the same as a .22

I did not. You keep misrepresenting what I wrote, because without such tactics, you have nothing. I was referring to the diameter, which is the same for both. The difference is the powder load, and thus the power.

The depth of your firearms expertise is already the stuff of legend around here.

Among the ignorant such as yourself.

 

[Elixir]

Bullshit.

No bullshit. I could have gotten in to Yale without even graduating high school. Why? Because back in 1800s my grandfather went there, then my father went there, then my older brother went there. Funny thing ... they/we are/were all white men. The invitation was open.

 

[Derec]

Also there's literally no rule that says someone can't call themselves an anti-fascist and not consider themselves part of the KDP or whatever. You just made that up.

I just elucidated the origin and history of the term. Even today, antifascism is strongly associated with far-left activism.

 

[Derec]

No bullshit. I could have gotten in to Yale without even graduating high school. Why? Because back in 1800s my grandfather went there, then my father went there, then my older brother went there. Funny thing ... they/we are/were all white men. The invitation was open.

Even if this was true (I am skeptical), that is preference based on legacy, not preference. My white ass would not enjoy it.
On the other hand, somebody as dimwitted as Sheila Jackson Lee got in solely based on her melanin.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

I am all for better regulation. I am, however, against banning certain categories of firearms based on things like how they look, or based on them having a similar name as a heavy gun firing big bullets that an idiot legislator once held.

And yet you obsess about that strawman, and talk about nothing else whenever the topic arises here. I too am against banning firearms based on their appearance, rather than their capabilities and technical specifications. But that doesn't matter much here, because nobody here is calling for such bans.

Indeed, the post to which you are allegedly responding talks only of guns requiring "the same level of regulations and controls that these other examples require", the examples in this instance being "Flying a plane" and "Medicines vaccines and surgeries".

You need a licence to fly a plane, or to practice medicine, or to manufacture medicines or vaccines; You also must comply with various regulatory and inspection regimes in order to use those licences.

Neither aircraft nor medicines are regulated based on their appearance, rather than their uses, capabilities, and potential for harm if misused.

Yet you brought up "banning certain categories of firearms based on things like how they look", rather than discuss the topic at hand; And you routinely do this, every time an effort is made to discuss any kind of licensing or regulation.

A cynical person might think you didn't want to have an honest discussion of gun regulation at all.

 

[Derec]

DC Cancels ‘Red Hood’ Comic Book Series After Writer Shares Inflammatory Post Following Charlie Kirk Shooting

This writer looks like she's from central casting for "female woke campus radical".

 

[bilby]

Antifascism does not mean just opposition to fascism.

Of course it does.

It's a particular ideology associated with communism.

Was.

Past tense.

What our grandparents, or even our parents, might have understood by it in the context of political events eighty years ago is not relevant in any way to its plain and direct usage today.

 

[Derec]

None of these is "far left". Abolish police/prisons is far left. Vandalize construction vehicles and commit arson at construction company offices because you disagree with a police/fire training center being built is "far left". Occupying several city blocks for weeks because you are mad at a robber dying in a different state is "far left". Wanting to "seize the means of production" is far left. Saying that illegals should be deported in general is "far left".

 

[Derec]

Of course it does.

No, it does not. It has been coopted.

Was.
Past tense.

Wrong. Modern Antifas are also far-left, and apt to call everybody who disagrees with them a "fascist'.

What our grandparents, or even our parents, might have understood by it in the context of political events eighty years ago is not relevant in any way to its plain and direct usage today.

I do not know if you have Antifas down under. But we have them here, and there is very much a continuity between the OGs and the modern incarnation.

 

[bilby]

This is not the first time I"ve read that the 2nd amendment was ratified to keep the slaves down.

Consider the source though: Truthout is hardly reliable.

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.

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.

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.

That Truthout wants to focus on only one such threat is unsurprising, but doesn't make their analysis wrong, just incomplete.