Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. 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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

DP. Thanks, now I’ve read the whole statement. But it doesn’t make him or that quote sound any better.

And he's WRONG. 2A was never for "defense against tyrannical government" - that's an invented modern fiction.

Just look at history. Within a few months of ratifying 2A, Congress passed the Militia Act, which actually defines what a militia is (2A advocates always love to ignore that part with yet more of their own fiction.) But THEN, just a few months later the Charlie Kirk theory was put to the test, when a bunch of farmers and distillers decided it was "tyranny" for the government to collect taxes on their product, this became known as the Whiskey Rebellion. And what did those Founding Fathers, the ones who WROTE the Second Amendment do about it? Let them "resist tyrannical government?" NO. They authorized President George Washington to go out and squash their rebellion.

As for the rest of this tripe, the data shows that an armed civilian populace in America has NOT deterred crime. That is yet another fabricated fiction, peddled by the NRA to help gun manufacturers and gun dealers to sell more guns. If guns deterred crime, America should have significantly lower crime rates than countries with stricter gun laws. But instead we have higher crime rates.

DP. I assume he had armed security when he was shot. That did not stop him from getting shot. So he is wrong about arm security being the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This man was a media commentator not a politician. He’s dead, let him go and forget about naming streets etc after him. He’s a nobody.

This is an ignorant statement. He may in fact be a martyr except not how "people" intended. Was he someone to be immortalized? No. But he was at one of the most significant crossroads in recent American history and he didn't take the Faustian bargain. Like him or not, he didn't seem to be a puppet once he had enough capital, and his letter and past-half-year interactions show he was heavily conflicted. His death perhaps is what is going to lead to the calving of the MAGA monolith. Since his death and it's only been three weeks!! There's significant infighting among MAGA happening. Wag the dog killings. The speed at which they're trying to SS the military and gestapo the federal police force. The takeovers of the media and now this Gaza deal. Shutdown threat. They created some smoke to basically do all of this. And yet there seem to be even more deep state conspiracies than when Obama and Biden were around.

However, there are actual free speech ride or dies that exist on the right. Real Christians that don't approve of the cult culture. The anti-Israel influence people. The left elites have no spine and they're profiting just as much in the market and BTC and altcoins that no one else has heard of. So maybe some on the right can choose to be human again, if at least for one moment. If this happens, the left would be wise to at least agree to agree if just for that moment. Enemy of my enemy. At this point, what else is there to lose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Kirk exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk and his curiosity ultimately ended him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk and his curiosity ultimately ended him.

He was not a curious person. Please. He had an agenda and did not debate in good faith. He was inflammatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk and his curiosity ultimately ended him.

He was not a curious person. Please. He had an agenda and did not debate in good faith. He was inflammatory.

The inflammatory dialogue was his schtick, his facade, he may have dug a little too deep this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Only his assasin has the definitive answer to that question, and he's not talking. All we can do is speculate, and judging by the number of people who celebrated Kirk's death, it's safe to say he said some things that were deeply offensive, even threatening. Maybe start by examining some of those people (yes, their opinions matter, too.)

[Anonymous]

I’m ready to never hear about him again. His 15 mins have passed. Stop cramming him down our throats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m ready to never hear about him again. His 15 mins have passed. Stop cramming him down our throats.

You're ignorant. They basically killed a conflicted, charismatic young guy and took over his $500 million organization that has heavy influence among young people (college students). They took over TikTok to create a propaganda machine that influences even younger people (adolescents and teens). They just purchased Electronic Arts, whose platforms are used by who to communicate with each other in game? Oh yeah, all young people. What do you think the goal of AI is to do but displace job opportunities for young people, so they can choose who to hire. Look up Roman Yampolskiy and Geoffrey Hinton. What's next? Discord? Kick? When you limit the absolute number of traditional jobs to make money, everything begins to turn into a beauty pageant for other people to monetize themselves (i.e., influencers or creators), where winners can be controlled by the tech companies through "front paging," and losers will stay losers through "shadow banning." Also, why do you think these billionaires who traditionally love banks and stock markets are moving to shadow currencies like crypto that's hard to trace? If you notice, why did they go hard after all these media moguls and crypto investors, and now they're literally trying to control or buy all these same companies? Mob tactics, as Ted Cruz said.

It's not the Chinese or Russians, or MS-13 you have to worry about. Americans have been Pavlov'ed by certain elements in the American government and media into reacting (with ADHD attention) with trigger words like anti-Semitic, trans, and 2nd amendment, and names such as Putin and Kim Jong Un. Everything has a catch phrase. It's the ultimate dog whistle. There is a lot of thought control going on and they're going after your kids now. I highly recommend you google Tristan Harris, watch some of his interviews, and understand his background and that he was warning about the dangers of the internet to children, he started saying it 10 years ago. It's happening now.

I hope this all made sense because this is a serious, complicated issue but I don't feel like writing a dissertation about it. But tldr, your children's rights are slowly being stripped away and people like you are allowing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ready to never hear about him again. His 15 mins have passed. Stop cramming him down our throats.

You're ignorant. They basically killed a conflicted, charismatic young guy and took over his $500 million organization that has heavy influence among young people (college students). They took over TikTok to create a propaganda machine that influences even younger people (adolescents and teens). They just purchased Electronic Arts, whose platforms are used by who to communicate with each other in game? Oh yeah, all young people. What do you think the goal of AI is to do but displace job opportunities for young people, so they can choose who to hire. Look up Roman Yampolskiy and Geoffrey Hinton. What's next? Discord? Kick? When you limit the absolute number of traditional jobs to make money, everything begins to turn into a beauty pageant for other people to monetize themselves (i.e., influencers or creators), where winners can be controlled by the tech companies through "front paging," and losers will stay losers through "shadow banning." Also, why do you think these billionaires who traditionally love banks and stock markets are moving to shadow currencies like crypto that's hard to trace? If you notice, why did they go hard after all these media moguls and crypto investors, and now they're literally trying to control or buy all these same companies? Mob tactics, as Ted Cruz said.

It's not the Chinese or Russians, or MS-13 you have to worry about. Americans have been Pavlov'ed by certain elements in the American government and media into reacting (with ADHD attention) with trigger words like anti-Semitic, trans, and 2nd amendment, and names such as Putin and Kim Jong Un. Everything has a catch phrase. It's the ultimate dog whistle. There is a lot of thought control going on and they're going after your kids now. I highly recommend you google Tristan Harris, watch some of his interviews, and understand his background and that he was warning about the dangers of the internet to children, he started saying it 10 years ago. It's happening now.

I hope this all made sense because this is a serious, complicated issue but I don't feel like writing a dissertation about it. But tldr, your children's rights are slowly being stripped away and people like you are allowing it.

Agree, wake up. Charlie’s execution is being used to mock, divide, and exploit us even further now. Rather than focusing on sending troops into liberal cities, perhaps we should be banning all social media platforms from under 18 year olds. I’m willing to boycott it all. I don’t need to be influenced by anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Kirk exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk.

Yep. Imagine that. A troubled young man didn’t like what he said so he tried to silence him. Others celebrated. Sick people - all of them.
Truth is that his voice was made louder and stronger. Largest TPUSA gathering last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Kirk exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk.

Yep. Imagine that. A troubled young man didn’t like what he said so he tried to silence him. Others celebrated. Sick people - all of them.
Truth is that his voice was made louder and stronger. Largest TPUSA gathering last night.

Only problem is Tyler Robinson isn’t the troubled young man. It was some perpetually troubled individuals who executed Charlie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Kirk exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk.

Yep. Imagine that. A troubled young man didn’t like what he said so he tried to silence him. Others celebrated. Sick people - all of them.
Truth is that his voice was made louder and stronger. Largest TPUSA gathering last night.

Why are they sick? They had valid reasons to take joy in his silencimg, just as he took joy in the silencing of others. Does that make him sick, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

DP.

What did he say that put him at heightened risk? I dislike the guy but I have not seen or heard anything he said that put him at heightened risk.

Kirk exercising his first amendment rights put him at an increased risk.

Yep. Imagine that. A troubled young man didn’t like what he said so he tried to silence him. Others celebrated. Sick people - all of them.
Truth is that his voice was made louder and stronger. Largest TPUSA gathering last night.

Why are they sick? They had valid reasons to take joy in his silencimg, just as he took joy in the silencing of others. Does that make him sick, too?

None of this matters anyway. Who cares? Look at the larger picture. Are you purposely not seeing it?