- He had to be very experienced to get such an accurate shot off from a distance far enough from the crowd gathered. 200+ yards (600 feet) also must include allowance for wind to be so precise.
- He was lethal with just one shot fired
- He was able to get to his location undetected, setup, get a perfect shot off, and egress alsi without detection.
-This could not have been done by someone without experience and/or extensive training. A current or ex military sniper, spec ops or similar background or a very experienced big game hunter that extensively practiced would be a strong candidate..a random Charlie Kirk hater without these skills could not pull this off.
- The motivation to target Kirk specifically when cross referenced with the skills necessary would be most likely.
Why would someone with such gun skills target Kirk??
Two theories:
1. The Charlie Kirk quote, "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." could very likely be a trigger for a parent, sibling or friend of a victim of a school shooting or other shooting tragedy. Such a parent, sibling or friend with sniper skills could be the shooter.
2. This was a targeted assassination by nefarious actors to help trigger a deeper civil uprising and sow more division.
One thing that doesn't seem likely in light if his successful shot and escape: This wasn't done by someone rando anti Kirk guy with marginal skills.
It would be but Charlie is definitely dead and is also not the kind of guy to martyr himself for the cause. He's a grifter. Certainly not the type to put his life on the line.
Would this be beyond Trump and Steve Miller to have Charlie Kirk assassinated as yet another attempt to fill the news cycle in hopes that people will forget about the Epstein list? Trump has already shown with militarizing the police that he will go to any lengths to distract from the Epstein list.
- He had to be very experienced to get such an accurate shot off from a distance far enough from the crowd gathered. 200+ yards (600 feet) also must include allowance for wind to be so precise.
- He was lethal with just one shot fired
- He was able to get to his location undetected, setup, get a perfect shot off, and egress alsi without detection.
-This could not have been done by someone without experience and/or extensive training. A current or ex military sniper, spec ops or similar background or a very experienced big game hunter that extensively practiced would be a strong candidate..a random Charlie Kirk hater without these skills could not pull this off.
- The motivation to target Kirk specifically when cross referenced with the skills necessary would be most likely.
Why would someone with such gun skills target Kirk??
Two theories:
1. The Charlie Kirk quote, "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." could very likely be a trigger for a parent, sibling or friend of a victim of a school shooting or other shooting tragedy. Such a parent, sibling or friend with sniper skills could be the shooter.
2. This was a targeted assassination by nefarious actors to help trigger a deeper civil uprising and sow more division.
One thing that doesn't seem likely in light if his successful shot and escape: This wasn't done by someone rando anti Kirk guy with marginal skills.
You’re correct with your number 2. And the answer is likely Trump and his gang likely orchestrated this whole murder and had Charlie killed to further sow division to distract from the Epstein scandal.
Wonderful for him. He helped one well to do family going through one bad ordeal. woopdeedoo. He also mocked and disparaged tens of thousands of young people to their faces and trivialized gun violence. He was a massive hypocrite.
There would be bipartisanship on something like this in Australia. The way our govt is elected, sure one of the two major parties always wins, but it is non presidential and with a 'two party preferred' system, where preferences from other parties determine vote, there has to be a wider reach from either party leading to very centrist govt. Not 100% perfect but close.
People also don't 'talk politics' or give a rats who you vote for in terms of friendship, socialising etc. It goes a long way to prevention of such actions.
We have only 'lost' (yes completely) a PM in a surf drowning
The dude literally said Kamala Harris "talked at an PhD sort of level" and you think it's a great post?
Are you thick?
You seriously think Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton lost because they were too smart...
LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!
No. You are not getting the point. She talked above people. High morals etc. DJT went straight for the throat (of the matter). Half the population is thinking basic living needs: jobs, groceries, gas, freedom. Survival.
DJT told everyone what they wanted to hear and lied 100 % of the time.
- He had to be very experienced to get such an accurate shot off from a distance far enough from the crowd gathered. 200+ yards (600 feet) also must include allowance for wind to be so precise.
- He was lethal with just one shot fired
- He was able to get to his location undetected, setup, get a perfect shot off, and egress alsi without detection.
-This could not have been done by someone without experience and/or extensive training. A current or ex military sniper, spec ops or similar background or a very experienced big game hunter that extensively practiced would be a strong candidate..a random Charlie Kirk hater without these skills could not pull this off.
- The motivation to target Kirk specifically when cross referenced with the skills necessary would be most likely.
Why would someone with such gun skills target Kirk??
Two theories:
1. The Charlie Kirk quote, "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." could very likely be a trigger for a parent, sibling or friend of a victim of a school shooting or other shooting tragedy. Such a parent, sibling or friend with sniper skills could be the shooter.
2. This was a targeted assassination by nefarious actors to help trigger a deeper civil uprising and sow more division.
One thing that doesn't seem likely in light if his successful shot and escape: This wasn't done by someone rando anti Kirk guy with marginal skills.
You’re correct with your number 2. And the answer is likely Trump and his gang likely orchestrated this whole murder and had Charlie killed to further sow division to distract from the Epstein scandal.
A 200 yard shot is not that difficult. I can put 9 out of 10 on a paper plate from 200 yards shooting prone with a 30:06 purchased at Walmart-and I'm not special-no training other than hunter safety and boy scout camp marksmanship badge. Shooter was going for a head shot, and was 6 inches low. I think it is possible that it is a government conspiracy. Perhaps CIA or FBI or other career "public servants," acting independently of the executive branch. Call it the deep state. More likely, however, is that it is the same kind of nut who killed the Healthcare executive. A rich Ivy Leaguer who was brain washed that murder is justifiable for "the cause." Remember they said that was a professional hit too. Turns out he was a rich kid with a sore back, and limited professional opportunities because he studied the wrong stuff in a fancy college.
You’re wrong. They didn’t prove anything on the campuses or even debate anyone. Charlie had a bunch of pre-prepared rapid-fire responses to common liberal objections. He didn’t prove anything or really engage with anyone who disagreed with him. The whole intention was Right Wing propaganda, and he edited out footage of the most impressive liberal students to build straw men for his followers.
Charlie was a smug God awful hypocrite of a human being who never worked one real day of work in his whole life. He insulted and lied his way through those campus talks with a fat poop eating grin on his face. He was a liar and a Trump poster boy. He was worse than Spirow Agnew and Henry Kissinger put together. A devoted fascist apologist, grifter, fraud, liar, war mongerer, and racist.
You’re wrong. They didn’t prove anything on the campuses or even debate anyone. Charlie had a bunch of pre-prepared rapid-fire responses to common liberal objections. He didn’t prove anything or really engage with anyone who disagreed with him. The whole intention was Right Wing propaganda, and he edited out footage of the most impressive liberal students to build straw men for his followers.
Charlie was a smug God awful hypocrite of a human being who never worked one real day of work in his whole life. He insulted and lied his way through those campus talks with a fat poop eating grin on his face. He was a liar and a Trump poster boy. He was worse than Spirow Agnew and Henry Kissinger put together. A devoted fascist apologist, grifter, fraud, liar, war mongerer, and racist.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.