Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

You’re totally right because the trans community doesn’t have any recent history of violence and shooting people……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They found the gun

Killer of Charlie Kirk 'appears to be of college age,' police say, and 'blended in' with college population. - AP

This sounds unlikely.

The shooter was well trained. Shooting someone in the head from 200+ yards away and hitting him in the neck… this was not someone who was a weekend shooter.

DP. Hitting a target from 200 yards does require training, but there's a lot of practiced hunters and people with military training who could do it, including a lot of college aged people.

No sh*t Sherlock. A head shot, with a single round, from 200+ yards out, is marksmanship. This is not an individual that started shooting this month. He was formally trained.

- retired Marine.

And we will never know the true story. This administration will see to that. They have zero credibility at this point. They will make up their radical leftist narrative and shove it hard down everyone's throats to justify more militarization of our cities and to justify the violent retribution that Trump had been calling for all along.

Over this person? It was a horrible senseless murder, but a lot of people didn't even know much about this person. Most are learning about him from the coverage of this incident unless they were one of his existing fans.

Those of you who didn’t know much about Charlie Kirk have been living in a liberal bubble. He was extremely influential.

The vast majority of Americans don’t care enough about politics to know about this guy until he was shot.

+1. A lot of people don't have time to follow the college speaking circuit. I can't name another person that's on it. Who are the other stars of college-speaking engagements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

Which is why they need to fight the actual shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

Good lord. We have no idea. Speculating is idiotic and worse than useless—it’s damaging.

The Heritage Foundation released the following words from the organization's president, Kevin Roberts, about the death of Charlie Kirk: “His martyrdom must be a turning point for our country.”

Yes, he said "martyrdom." Remember, we don't even know who killed the man or why.

So, yes, such rhetoric is damaging. Are you outraged at both the PP and the Heritage Foundation?

Yes, 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People might not get how big Charlie Kirk really was before his death. He had almost 23 million followers across TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, and YouTube, which is about 6 to 7 percent of the U.S. population right now. That is the kind of reach you only see with the biggest voices of a generation. For comparison, MLK had around 10 million active supporters through churches and marches back in 1968, about 5 percent of the population then.

Kirk knew how to use the tools of his time the same way MLK did. King worked through TV and newspapers, Kirk worked through TikTok, podcasts, and social media. Both relied on words, not violence. King pushed peaceful protest, Kirk pushed debate and activism. Up until his death today, Kirk was the face of conservative youth in America, shaping the conversation for millions. You may not know his impact, but it is strong, and many are already equating him to MLK for the conservative movement because of the reach, the speeches, and the nonviolent approach.

Wonder how many of those are bots, non-U.S. citizens, or 12 year olds. (No disrespect, 12 year olds.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

Good lord. We have no idea. Speculating is idiotic and worse than useless—it’s damaging.

The Heritage Foundation released the following words from the organization's president, Kevin Roberts, about the death of Charlie Kirk: “His martyrdom must be a turning point for our country.”

Yes, he said "martyrdom." Remember, we don't even know who killed the man or why.

So, yes, such rhetoric is damaging. Are you outraged at both the PP and the Heritage Foundation?

The killing of the Minnesota politicians didn't warrant a turning point for our country? It's ok for Democrat politicians to be killed, it's only when a right wing pundit gets killed that we need a turning point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is going to happen to the right wing narrative that this is the "radical left's" fault if the shooter turns out to be another white right wing gun nut?

They won't know because no one will tell them, and the ones who do will say it is fake. Do we really trust Kesh Patel to disclose the truth on this once it is known?

[Anonymous]

The WSJ calls it transgender "ideology". I love the WSJ, but goodness, they understand nothing about gender issues. It's not like people wake up one day and "choose" to change genders. They don't want this malaise anymore than the next person does. They suffer in their own bodies.

If people were more accepting that being transgender is not a choice, maybe the far-right murderers wouldn't deliberately make it look like a "trans" shot someone.

Such dehumanization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

The right is a lot less doctrinaire than the left. Your idea doesn't seem likely at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

This is a truly desperate attempt at deflection.
This will definitely be a post to revisit once the killer is caught.

We have no idea and the fact that you just assume it was a leftist when, really, there are a myriad of reasons someone may have done this, is a tell. The president and the right are all razzin' for a fight and want to use this as the catalyst, clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk would be alive if we had sensible gun laws. The right wing of America is off the charts when it comes to having rational gun policies and we are ally paying the price. They have full on embraced fascism. They are the ones who hate America and what it has stood for over the last 200 years. 40,000 Americas died from gun violence last year. Why is Kirk’s life more valuable than any of those who are nameless?

This post is a great example of how not to approach this.

1. I’m in favor of significantly stricter gun laws, but rational gun regulation would not have prevented this shooting. Bolt action rifles are not on anyone’s radar screen for regulation.

2. I loathe Trump and think he’s wrong on most things, his ideas are damaging and costly. But neither he nor his followers are fascists. They don’t hate America. They’re just wrong (arrogantly and abrasively so).

In short, you’re wrong on substance (gun control) and ludicrously extreme in your rhetoric.

Ironically, that makes you much like Trump.

+1

Everyone needs to calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about Minnesota House Rep Melissa Hortman who was also horrifically murdered? And Minnesota Senator Hoffman who was shot and wounded? And in those cases, their spouses also suffered the same fates, respectively.

What did they ever do that benefited Trump? That’s how he decides who gets one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

You’re totally right because the trans community doesn’t have any recent history of violence and shooting people……

Yeah but who'd be dumb enough to mark their rifle with identifying symbols, and then leave it to be found? And what a convenient "leak".

Also, trans community violence is dwarfed in comparison to right wing extremist violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

So, basically another white male shooter. Color me surprised. I’m also amused that the far right only recognizes transgender folks when tied to mass shootings. Swimming? Oh, he’s a guy! Shooting? Transgender for sure.

Mmmkay.

Mentally ill all the same though.

Heh it’s all a little too convenient if you ask me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

You’re totally right because the trans community doesn’t have any recent history of violence and shooting people……

Now compare how many white CIS men have been shooters to all the trans people.

IF there’s trans-antifa writing a on the shells, Im certain this was a set up. This is our Reichstag Fire.