Charlie Kirk Didn’t Shy Away From Who He Was. We Shouldn’t, Either

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean, that's what Charlie Kirk's logic leads to.

I never said that. Trump did.

But he did say some murders are acceptable.

If, as he claimed, some murders are acceptable, which ones are not?

Never said that.

Then why did Charlie Kirk claim some murders are acceptable?

The only thing left is to figure out which ones, and why. He didn't specify any exceptions. What should we conclude from that?

Some of the problem here is that way...............................way.........................................way back in the back of some people's minds, scenarios like those of the movie Red Dawn play out in dramatic detail.

And so, the presence of guns in society helps to defray the political fears certain people have of a political takeover by either larger, ever growing and ideologically opposed nations, or by vested parties in league with Communist principles within our own nation.

Whatever the case may be, and however fanciful and unfounded those fears are, they play a role in some people's overall political outlook.

 

[BPPLEE]

Some of the problem here is that way...............................way.........................................way back in the back of some people's minds, scenarios like those of the movie Red Dawn play out in dramatic detail.

And so, the presence of guns in society helps to defray the political fears certain people have of a political takeover by either larger, ever growing and ideologically opposed nations, or by vested parties in league with Communist principles within our own nation.

Whatever the case may be, and however fanciful and unfounded those fears are, they play a role in some people's overall political outlook.

Not to mention that most of the proposed gun control measures wouldn't have done anything to stop Kirk's murder.
From what I've seen it was a hunting rifle

 

[essentialsaltes]

I hope they keep Candace Owens out of TPUSA.

She's not invited to the memorial. And mad (and borderline antisemitic) about it.

 

[Juvenal]

Not to mention that most of the proposed gun control measures wouldn't have done anything to stop Kirk's murder.
From what I've seen it was a hunting rifle

Mmm, yes and no. Restrictions on the type of guns available wouldn't have made a difference. But reasonable accountability for the security of lethal weapons, maybe yes. It was his grandfather's gun. And it was a hunting weapon. If it had been secured the way any responsible gun owner would secure a lethal weapon, this tragedy could have been prevented, I'm thinking.

 

[Juvenal]

Some of the problem here is that way...............................way.........................................way back in the back of some people's minds, scenarios like those of the movie Red Dawn play out in dramatic detail.

And so, the presence of guns in society helps to defray the political fears certain people have of a political takeover by either larger, ever growing and ideologically opposed nations, or by vested parties in league with Communist principles within our own nation.

Whatever the case may be, and however fanciful and unfounded those fears are, they play a role in some people's overall political outlook.

People close to me feel that way, including people who should definitely know better. Ex-military, ex-marines even (okay, okay, I know, once a marine, always a marine). It's like these people never heard of air power, like they think they can stand up against artillery, like they don't know just one 500 lb JDAM would quickly put paid to the fiercest revolutionary fever if it became necessary.

I can kind of understand why Kirk might have thought so, because he was never military, but these folks have no excuse.

 

[BPPLEE]

Mmm, yes and no. Restrictions on the type of guns available wouldn't have made a difference. But reasonable accountability for the security of lethal weapons, maybe yes. It was his grandfather's gun. And it was a hunting weapon. If it had been secured the way any responsible gun owner would secure a lethal weapon, this tragedy could have been prevented, I'm thinking.

I’m thinking if he couldn’t have gotten his grandfather’s gun he would have just bought one.

 

[stevevw]

You mean, that's what Charlie Kirk's logic leads to.

lol so I will go back to the same logic. It was ok to murder Kirk because he called for his own murder. He said words that people could use to justify murder. That still don't justify murder. I think you ought to think about where this leads.

I never said that. Trump did.

Thats not the point. Its in using that to actually murder someone. Not the words but the actual putting into reality murder based on those words. Which by the way as I mentioned are often misrepresented and out of the context from what was originally said.

You can quibble about what was really meant but the fact that it is a subjective determination and basis based about peoples personal beliefs and persuations its a dangerous basis for determining murder.

In fact its no basis for the very fact its a subjective basis.

But he did say some murders are acceptable.

Yes but not to allow murder. Not to condone it. It was a statement of fact as to the US constitution on the right to bear arms. Like most of what he and Trump said is twisted into something else I think. We have seen this often. \

Like how Kirk was labelled a Nazi and supporting Nazis and facism when this was a group outside their meetings who were banned and Kirk wanted nothing to do with them. Yet the lie he was supporting Nazis was pushed. Same with Trump.

But anyway I don't want to get into the specific examples but rather to point out no matter what and even if some percieves others of saying murder is ok. It still doesn't make murder ok. Kirk was murdered for his words, opinions, beliefs.

If we are going to use that as the basis it is a dangerous and destructive precedent. Like I said this whole thing is subjective, about beliefs and opinions themselves.

If, as he claimed, some murders are acceptable, which ones are not?

He was not specifying and thats the point because it was a general statement about the constitution. That murders will happen in upholding that constitutional right. Not which ones are ok or not. Rather that murders will happen and are acceptable to happen if the constitution is to be upheld.

But nevertheless its still not the point. The fact you asked which murders are acceptabl;e shows this is subjective, a matter of belief and opinion. We already know that there is a polarisation of opinion and belief on the Left and Right. That tells us there is a high risk of bias on both sides.

So regardless of the wrong and right of it this is not a good basis to claim or even suggest that some murders are ok full stop. To speak like this is dangerous itself. That is the point and that is what has been happening and fueling this all along.

Never said that.

Ok I thought you said that Kirk was saying its OK to murder others so that contributed to his murder. Maybe I missunderstood you. Let me asked, did Kirk deserve to be murdered. Was his death murder. Is the person responsible accountable to murder.

Then why did Charlie Kirk claim some murders are acceptable?

I explained that above. But look at this logic another way. Kirk represented the majority beliefs in the conservatives. Do you really think as a Christian man who lived a good life by example and engaged with opposing views and even hateful ones that actually spoke vicious bile at him would support him if he was saying its actually ok to murder anyone.

If we go by this logic then there are many many many people speaking words that people percieve as saying murder is ok and so every murder is ok. Its a crazy mentality in the first place to even attribute to others in reality.

The only thing left is to figure out which ones, and why. He didn't specify any exceptions. What should we conclude from that?

I think you are making it that way. That we have to in the first place work out which murders are ok or not is the problem. Murder is not ok full stop. Murdering someone for what they say is not ok fullstop.

Murdering is not ok because you percieve someone said something that they deserve to be murdered for or said that was taken as making murder ok. Murder, is murder, is murder is murder. No matter which way you spin it.

Unless the person was threatening physically your family or nation to murder them and in self defense there is no justification for going into your neighbours house or up to them in public and murdering them for what you percieve they have said is wrong.

Saying that someone deserves murder because someone percieves they said it was ok to murder is still murder. Its not the fault of the person. If it was then we would have bodies 10 high in the streets of people others thought they said it was ok to muder others.

In fact we now know that the murderer was mentally ill and radicalised. There could have been any number of reasons. But one thing we know is he dispised Kirk to the point of delusion that he wanted to kill him and shut hom up for good. Hate is dangerous. Even holding anger in the heart leads to murder. Not because of anything but the hate and anger festering in the heart and mind.

His mental state was not able to reason and see his actions for the reality they were. Which was murdering someone because they did not like what they said or represented in their confused mind. Something I have heard very little about.

Rather its all about Kirk. The sad thing is I think an important legacy of Kirk is being overlooked. That he actually lived the opposite in love in engaging with his haters to connect and bridge the division gap even if that meant losing his life.

 

[Pommer]

Mmm, yes and no. Restrictions on the type of guns available wouldn't have made a difference. But reasonable accountability for the security of lethal weapons, maybe yes. It was his grandfather's gun. And it was a hunting weapon. If it had been secured the way any responsible gun owner would secure a lethal weapon, this tragedy could have been prevented, I'm thinking.

My understanding is that the rifle did, in fact, belong to the grandfather of Robinson, but passed-on(?) and the weapon was in the father’s hands, and gave it to the shooter-son, sometime before this occurrence.

 

[Pommer]

Something I have heard very little about. Rather it’s all about Kirk. The sad thing is I think an important legacy of Kirk is being overlooked. That he actually lived the opposite in love in engaging with his haters to connect and bridge the division gap even if that meant losing his life.

Opinionated people love being opinionated people!?

It’s true that some good ideas start from questioning the status quo, (the way things are done), but that’s not a conservative position, by definition.

 

[Servus]

She's not invited to the memorial. And mad (and borderline antisemitic) about it.

The Daily Mail tabloid and Instagram posts are the only sources I can find for this. Although on Instagram they're saying that she declined the invitation.

 

[stevevw]

Opinionated people love being opinionated people!?

It’s true that some good ideas start from questioning the status quo, (the way things are done), but that’s not a conservative position, by definition.

I agree and really asking questions, being able to express your belief and opinion and then allow opposing beliefs and opinions in the same public square. Then having civil discussions about those beliefs and just airing them out. Creating the environment where they can be debated and even argued.

Is something that is not conservative, democrate, radical or religious. Its a fundemental truth principle that we all use to believe in and stand on.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Daily Mail tabloid and Instagram posts are the only sources I can find for this. Although on Instagram they're saying that she declined the invitation.

According to the paper, she read and answered the questions from the Mail on her own show.

Instead of answering the questions via her spokesperson in an email - something previously done by her team just this week - Owens answered, going live on her show Thursday evening, airing an email from the Daily Mail with our request for comment.

'I was not invited to speak alongside President Trump, and JD Vance, on the stage with Tucker Carlson at a memorial event.'

 

[Servus]

According to the paper, she read and answered the questions from the Mail on her own show.

Instead of answering the questions via her spokesperson in an email - something previously done by her team just this week - Owens answered, going live on her show Thursday evening, airing an email from the Daily Mail with our request for comment.

'I was not invited to speak alongside President Trump, and JD Vance, on the stage with Tucker Carlson at a memorial event.'

Any other source for that other than a British tabloid?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Any other source for that other than a British tabloid?

Her podcast? Episode 238, starts about 38 minutes in (the email from the Daily Mail is at 43 minutes).

Seriously - it's not hard to fact check stuff like this yourself. "She said something on her podcast on Thursday." - okay; lets find her podcast and figure out which episode aired on Thursday. Then we can scroll through it and see if she does, indeed, say what was alleged. Took 5 minutes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Took 5 minutes.

Yes, but you had to listen to her. I was not willing to go there, so I appreciate the work.

 

[NxNW]

lol so I will go back to the same logic. It was ok to murder Kirk because he called for his own murder. He said words that people could use to justify murder. That still don't justify murder. I think you ought to think about where this leads.

He said murders will happen, and they're the price of 2A. He might not have been expecting his own, but he didn't specify any exceptions. It would be nice if gun owners were less violent, obviously.

Ok I thought you said that Kirk was saying its OK to murder others so that contributed to his murder.

No, he seemed to be saying a certain number of murders are 'baked into' a society that allows gun ownership, and that these murders are worth it.

Let me asked, did Kirk deserve to be murdered.

Of course not.

Was his death murder.

Yes.

Is the person responsible accountable to murder.

The courts haven't determined that yet.

Do you really think as a Christian man who lived a good life by example and engaged with opposing views and even hateful ones that actually spoke vicious bile at him would support him if he was saying its actually ok to murder anyone.

I disagree that he lived a good life.

Unless the person was threatening physically your family or nation to murder them and in self defense there is no justification for going into your neighbours house or up to them in public and murdering them for what you percieve they have said is wrong.

It's tragic that a Republican did this in Minnesota, isn't it.

In fact we now know that the murderer was mentally ill and radicalised.

If he was mentally ill, he may not be held accountable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes, but you had to listen to her. I was not willing to go there, so I appreciate the work.

Yeah, there was some real yikes stuff in there. Fortunately I remembered to use private browsing, so hopefully I avoided any permanent damage to my algorithm.

 

[BPPLEE]

People close to me feel that way, including people who should definitely know better. Ex-military, ex-marines even (okay, okay, I know, once a marine, always a marine). It's like these people never heard of air power, like they think they can stand up against artillery, like they don't know just one 500 lb JDAM would quickly put paid to the fiercest revolutionary fever if it became necessary.

I can kind of understand why Kirk might have thought so, because he was never military, but these folks have no excuse.

You seem to forget that our government was nearly toppled by people armed with bear spray and flagpoles

 

[durangodawood]

You seem to forget that our government was nearly toppled by people armed with bear spray and flagpoles

They tried tho. It helped that they were all keyed up to believe they were the vanguard of a great wave that included efforts by the current regime at the time.

 

[stevevw]

He said murders will happen, and they're the price of 2A. He might not have been expecting his own, but he didn't specify any exceptions. It would be nice if gun owners were less violent, obviously.

I agree but what your doing is taking a general statement about a constitutional law or right and then personalising it against Kirk. When it was never qualified that way in the first place.

In fact when Kirk says murders will happen people are twisting that to mean those murders are ok. No all muders are wrong. Kirk just acknowledge that murders will happen as a result of upholding that law or right.

No, he seemed to be saying a certain number of murders are 'baked into' a society that allows gun ownership, and that these murders are worth it.

Hum it seems to me the word 'worth it' is what is being conflated and has more than one meaning and people have twisted their meaning onto it to use against Kirk.

Nothing in what Kirk said I think is controversial or calling for murders. Its a commonsense position. If the US allows guns and there are murderers out there with guns then people will want a gun to protect themselves. Thats the reality. So if someone who illegally has a gun or uses that gun illegally then they will die by a gun as a consequence.

But if you don't allow that right and thugs have guns then your an open target and we could say that now the law, what people are calling for is to allow innocents to be unprotected and slaughtererd in the streets because there is no right to defend.

I don't agree with guns but I don't live in the US. But I can understand the situation where there are so many guns that its got to a point where theres so much anxiety people want guns to protect themselves.

But either way this is not Kirks fault. He is just making a general statement about where the US is at and the constitutional right to bear arms and the consequences of that reality.

In fact as we can see this is a matter of opinion and belief on these mattersits the fact that people are now using their personal opinion to blame Kirk which is the problem. As though their opinion or the twisted version they have is the truth and the only right thing. Thus cancelling all other opinions. The same again as its been lately with cancel culture.

The courts haven't determined that yet.

What are you saying the courts may find he was innocent of murder. Did he kill someone or not. Are people allowed to go out in public and take shots at others like that. You don't need a court for that.

I disagree that he lived a good life.

Hum was he a drug addict, committed crime, abused his wife and kids. Did help help the poor, inspire people, look after his family, work hard, and be a responsible member of society.

What is your version of good. This is the very point I was talking about. The subjective opinions of people as to whether he was a good man and what exactly is good. Its all subjective and your willing to die on that hill.

What about the many others who say he was a good man. Who is right, who is wrong and how do you work that out when its subjective. To determine a persons character based on personal opinion and especially when we know for a fact like the gunman many people hate Kirk with a passion. Not by fact but by biased feelings I don't think its a good basis for judging someone.

It's tragic that a Republican did this in Minnesota, isn't it.

Like I said I am not disagreeing that there are radicals on both sides. But it seems the trend lately is attacks from the Left on the Right. Look at the fallout from Kirk where we are seeing many people sacked and rightly so for falsely attacking kirk and blaming him. Look at the celebrations for many on the Left at his death.

There were no rioting and looting or even more murders because of Kirks death. The conservatives did not go crazyt wrecking everything. They just mourned and were devasted and come together in unity and many were unifying with the Left. Two completely different states of mind.

If he was mentally ill, he may not be held accountable.

That doesn't negate that this was murder. I don't think it was mental illness to the point of insanity. It was more about radicalised thinking. Believing unreal ideas which many have fallen for but taking the ideas to the extreme and acting them out.

Not too dissimilar to radical Islam. Which we would say is a form of mental illness in that their beliefs cause them to disengage with reality and do stuff we all know is sick or crazy for a human to do to another.