Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

And ironically the one who advocated for the 2nd amendment was shot and killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who has been fired for exercising their inalienable right to free speech to say what they thought of Kirk sues their employers and wins big $$$$$$$$$$.

Make sure you never work in a public school system. We're told to never post anything political on any social media. Been that way for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anything, it sounds like the trans roommate helped police and provided access to messages. Their evidentiary help, along with the family minister reporting to the police, is what will provide an airtight case for prosecutors.

The roommate did not retrieve the weapon, as instructed by the shooter. In that regard, they were not an accomplice. I guess we will see what else comes out.

It will come out that the roommate knew all about this of course. He is cooperating now to lessen his own sentence.

The roommate also could have thought the guy was BS-ing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who has been fired for exercising their inalienable right to free speech to say what they thought of Kirk sues their employers and wins big $$$$$$$$$$.

Make sure you never work in a public school system. We're told to never post anything political on any social media. Been that way for years.

Is advocating for gun control frowned upon in public school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

So you're saying that Trump will fit into RBG's fact pattern and celebrations should be handled accordingly (i.e., ignored)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

I doubt it. Childcare is women's work.

Reading a book to your child is not “childcare.”

My dad didn’t even know what school we went to. He dropped me off to the wrong prek and decades later it still traumatizes me.

Yes, unfortunately for those types, any involvement with the young kids beyond financial is “women’s work”. They don’t care how damaging having an emotionally distant father or husband is on a young family.

But from a child’s perspective, it would be nice if Daddy was still here. It would be nice to be able to remember your dad. His kids won’t have this experience. All because of a gun.

Charlie basically said blacks turn to crime because there is no father. Hope his kids don’t turn to crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

Gun violence is an ABSOLUTELY predictable consequence of lack of gun control, which Kirk himself recognized.

Great. Sounds like we agree on both matters.

1- There will be gun violence if there are guns

2- Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist. (This is actually a statistically very Uncommon incident if gun violence in America. See fbi stats - gangs, domestic violence, accidental, crimes of passion, self defense)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anything, it sounds like the trans roommate helped police and provided access to messages. Their evidentiary help, along with the family minister reporting to the police, is what will provide an airtight case for prosecutors.

The roommate did not retrieve the weapon, as instructed by the shooter. In that regard, they were not an accomplice. I guess we will see what else comes out.

It will come out that the roommate knew all about this of course. He is cooperating now to lessen his own sentence.

The roommate also could have thought the guy was BS-ing

That will be his lame attempt at a defense. But predicting there is enough online chatter to between the two of them, going on for enough time, to convict him as well. That’s why he’s cooperating now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

Ok so we should still provide guns to anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Have you been on reddit lately? I doubt it. I can only imagine what's going on discord. It's relevant. Very.

So then what? Grab their guns? Deny their purchase of guns? Please do it. Set precedent.

Yes first take away the trans peoples’ guns, that would be a good start. Then go from there.

So take away everyone’s guns?

Seems extreme

Why do you need a gun?

DP but I live on a farm, of course I need a gun.

I do not support taking guns away from transpeople categorically in any way. That is a knee jerk reaction and not a well-considered conservative opinion, at least for this conservative.

Mystified here. I lived on a farm for many years. We had cattle and for several years there was a wolf pack in the area, but there was never a time when a gun was necessary. So I don't get the "of course I need a gun" part.

There is, I suppose, a very small chance of criminal violence given that farms are by nature isolated from each other and response times for emergency services are long, even much longer. But I knew farm families that did not have guns. The lady down the road from us had a couple of 2 by 4s she would wedge between her kitchen door and her front door and a nearby wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

I don’t think the following quote counts as civilized.

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who has been fired for exercising their inalienable right to free speech to say what they thought of Kirk sues their employers and wins big $$$$$$$$$$.

Make sure you never work in a public school system. We're told to never post anything political on any social media. Been that way for years.

Is advocating for gun control frowned upon in public school?

Just telling you that we are told to not put political opinions (how we vote, comments about political topics, opinions about political leaders, etc) on social media. It's probably alright to advocate for gun control without bringing politics into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

Did any victims die? No

Did anyone famous in a natl scale die? No.

How many people get shot and killed daily in America? With or without gang on gang shootings?

CO boy was a social media influenced shooter who injured two and then killed himself.

Do you want him to get more attention so other troubled young men do the same? Or what do you want?

We want gun control for starters.

Just remember Charlie could be here tonight reading Goodnight Moon to his kids.

Trans or not, he probably still would be if Robinson wasn't raised in a gun-obsessed family.

Yes trans is irrelevant.

Have you been on reddit lately? I doubt it. I can only imagine what's going on discord. It's relevant. Very.

So then what? Grab their guns? Deny their purchase of guns? Please do it. Set precedent.

Yes first take away the trans peoples’ guns, that would be a good start. Then go from there.

So take away everyone’s guns?

Seems extreme

Why do you need a gun?

DP but I live on a farm, of course I need a gun.

I do not support taking guns away from transpeople categorically in any way. That is a knee jerk reaction and not a well-considered conservative opinion, at least for this conservative.

Mystified here. I lived on a farm for many years. We had cattle and for several years there was a wolf pack in the area, but there was never a time when a gun was necessary. So I don't get the "of course I need a gun" part.

There is, I suppose, a very small chance of criminal violence given that farms are by nature isolated from each other and response times for emergency services are long, even much longer. But I knew farm families that did not have guns. The lady down the road from us had a couple of 2 by 4s she would wedge between her kitchen door and her front door and a nearby wall.

Does every Amish farmer own a gun? Like all Amish people?