Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the past 24 hours, I have seen hundreds of clips of Charlie being interviewed and debating with people who have different opinions.
The thing I notice is how his words are not personal - he expresses his views and opinions but never denigrates the person he is debating with. He treats everyone with respect.
This is why so many young college students are so devastated by his assassination. They may not have agreed with him, but they respected him.

This. This assassination is an attack on civilization and democracy itself. He was literally killed having a peaceful debate with people with opposing views. The people celebrating this are anti democratic, anti American, and anti civilization.

A) virtually no one is celebrating this, and nobody of any significance on the left is celebrating it

B) the rights' response has been to call for violence and repression against the left

THAT is anti-democratic.

J6 was anti-democratic.

The right wing is lying. Lying is undemocratic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inside job

by who?

He was recently pushing to release the Epstein files. Given the precision of his hit and the fact that he wasn’t caught, my guess is Israel or Russia.

We should know more about the private plane that took off and off radar to Mexico right after he was shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate Trump and I hated Charlie Kirk and everything he stood for. However there are kids who don’t have a father today. That’s nothing but sadness and despair. They should not have been deprived of that.

We need to deal with political violence. And the first step is exerting some kind of levelheadedness to our culture. The second step is to find a way to stop the flow of guns. America owns 400 million guns - isn’t that enough??

That rifle recovered was mad 70 years ago and is a hunting rifle. How would gun control stop that?

Gun control entails arresting a lot of people and building a lot more prisons. Have you thought this through?

Fewer guns means they're harder to get ahold of.

Also, if gun sales are tracked, licenses are required, etc. it makes it harder for crazy people of any political stripe to get them.

It doesn't not mean arresting a lot of people and building a lot more prisons since, according to gun nuts, most gun owners are law abiding citizens. Nobody realistically believes in a gun ban, just a shift towards regulation that develops over time. Grow up and think about others, man... this country is dying, school children, people like charlie kirk... it's the spectrum, and they're all dying when they don't need to. Why are you okay with that?

The people who are carjacking people aren’t going to go through licensed gun sales. You know that, right?

I don’t care about tracking gun sales. Go for it. But it wouldn’t stop this assassination and it wouldn’t stop the epidemic of murders in our cities.

You know how people who are carjacking people get their guns? From stealing guns that are improperly stored. Track the sales of the guns, require proper storage and hold people responsible for the crimes committed with their stolen weaponry and carjackers will be trying to work with sticks in stones in a matter of weeks.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inside job

by who?

He was recently pushing to release the Epstein files. Given the precision of his hit and the fact that he wasn’t caught, my guess is Israel or Russia.

We should know more about the private plane that took off and off radar to Mexico right after he was shot.

He backed off on that on Trump's direct orders a while back. Trump doesn't want the Epstein materials released for obvious reasons so he got his zealots, including CK, in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk spoke about the Epstein files and urged Donald Trump to release them. In response, Trump reportedly told Charlie to stay quiet. It's possible that someone from Trump’s fan base, or even an organized group aligned with him, may have targeted Charlie. This could have served a dual purpose: silencing a prominent MAGA figure pushing for the release of the Epstein files, while also shifting blame onto the political Left.

Flew too close to the sun, started biting the hand that fed him, got too big for his britches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the past 24 hours, I have seen hundreds of clips of Charlie being interviewed and debating with people who have different opinions.
The thing I notice is how his words are not personal - he expresses his views and opinions but never denigrates the person he is debating with. He treats everyone with respect.
This is why so many young college students are so devastated by his assassination. They may not have agreed with him, but they respected him.

This. This assassination is an attack on civilization and democracy itself. He was literally killed having a peaceful debate with people with opposing views. The people celebrating this are anti democratic, anti American, and anti civilization.

A) virtually no one is celebrating this, and nobody of any significance on the left is celebrating it

B) the rights' response has been to call for violence and repression against the left

THAT is anti-democratic.

J6 was anti-democratic.

Also wildly undemocratic was the Hortmans murder and I heard zero outrage over that from the right.

[Anonymous]

We need gun control reform.

[Anonymous]

This is a sad turning point in America.

We are all doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:idk why everyone thinks criminals are caught IMMEDIATELY. The health care CEO kid was caught after a week or so? Washington State psycho who stabbed all those girls took over a month to arrest?

They think this is a Hollywood movie.

[jsteele]

I'm reopening the thread now.

I removed several posts about Kirk allegedly saying that gay people should be stoned. Had he said that, it would not be permissible to post today because it would be a negative post and, as such, violate the 48 hour rule. However, it didn't actually express a desire for gay people to be stoned. Are is what happened (I am being brief in the interest of time):

Kirk was responding to Ms. Rachel after she said that she supported gay rights because of her religion and that the Bible said to love your neighbors. Ms. Rachel stressed that the Bible said to love "all" neighbors, not all neighbors except those who were gay.

Kirk said that she was quoting Leviticus 19, a book in the Old Testament as I am sure most know. He noted that the chapter before that, Leviticus 18, said that gay people should be stoned to death. His point was not that he believes that gays should be stoned to death, but rather that, contrary to what Ms. Rachel had said, there was an exception for gays (at least as he interpreted it). Kirk was being disingenuous, however. Ms. Rachel had explicitly said that she was referring to Mathew 22, a book in the New Testament. Any exception in the Old Testament would be irrelevant to her belief, something of which Kirk would surely be aware.

What Kirk should be criticized for is his misleading debate tactics. It is a cheap shot to ignore Ms. Rachel's clear words and misconstrue them as something else. In context, Kirk clearly does not believe that gays should be stoned to death and there is no additional evidence of his having such a belief.

[Anonymous]

Kirk seemed authentically pretty popular. I don’t buy and will never buy that someone as viscerally detestable as Ben Shapiro—who isn’t much older than Kirk—has a real audience. It’ll be interesting to see who becomes the next young thought leader on the right.

[jsteele]

BTW, I wrote about Kirk in my blog today. You can read it here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2025/09/11/update091125

[Anonymous]

The gun violence issue is bigger than 'gun control'. We need to stop with the NRA-created rhetoric that people on the right think are practically American values now. But we need shame to reappear in American politics for that to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gun violence issue is bigger than 'gun control'. We need to stop with the NRA-created rhetoric that people on the right think are practically American values now. But we need shame to reappear in American politics for that to happen.

What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gun violence issue is bigger than 'gun control'. We need to stop with the NRA-created rhetoric that people on the right think are practically American values now. But we need shame to reappear in American politics for that to happen.

What are you trying to say?

For example, maybe politicians should stop posing with guns in their ads.