I’m guessing the shooter is some deranged gun enthusiast who hates republicans but somehow still believes in the great replacement theory. There isn’t a blue haired barista alive who can make that shot. There’s gonna be some wild conspiracies if they are never caught
I’m not a blue haired barista, but I am a far left-winger. Also, ex-military, and I guarantee I could make that shot, not that I ever would. I’m against this type of violence… we have to be able to settle our differences or debate our differences through nonviolent means.
It’s tough when you have somebody like Charlie Kirk, who is advocating for taking rights away from people.
Settling our difference through non-violent means is exactly what Charlie Kirk was doing. He believed in respectful dialogue and debate. He never treated opponents rudely or engaged in ad hominem attacks. By all accounts, he was a peaceful man.
We address our difference through communication, separation, or war. Charlie was a strong advocate for dialogue. He was murdered for trying it the peaceful way.
If the shooter turns out to be a white supremacist ex-military prepper who wanted to start a civil war or thought Kirk didn’t go far enough down the race war rabbit hole, will any repubs care that they had it all so wrong?
not bloody likely.
200 yard shot, clean escape….sounds military to me. Not some campus lefty.
It doesn't matter. The story gets the most coverage when it happens. If they find this person in two or three weeks time and turns out to be a Proud Boy or an Oath Keeper, the story will not be circulated as much as it is now.
There are no pictures of any suspects circulating on social media, which is strange. Already feels like this guy has gone.
If you are traumatized in any way by the two videos that you saw of people being murdered and the gore and distress associated with it, just think what it does to toddlers, teens and preteens that have had to witness it in person!
School shootings and other mass shootings should be receiving the same attention as this Kirk killing. Instead, we are told to just move on. And that it is a necessary part of our need to have guns for all.
We have a true “school shooting” once every 4-5 years. A gang shooting, let alone a 2am drive by, at an inner city hellhole school isn’t a true one.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
I’m not a blue haired barista, but I am a far left-winger. Also, ex-military, and I guarantee I could make that shot, not that I ever would. I’m against this type of violence… we have to be able to settle our differences or debate our differences through nonviolent means.
It’s tough when you have somebody like Charlie Kirk, who is advocating for taking rights away from people.
Settling our difference through non-violent means is exactly what Charlie Kirk was doing. He believed in respectful dialogue and debate. He never treated opponents rudely or engaged in ad hominem attacks. By all accounts, he was a peaceful man.
We address our difference through communication, separation, or war. Charlie was a strong advocate for dialogue. He was murdered for trying it the peaceful way.
That’s what people have been saying about him but his opinions were too extreme for him to be a bridge between the parties. He was just a more intelligent, less belligerent version of Trump.
We have a true “school shooting” once every 4-5 years. A gang shooting, let alone a 2am drive by, at an inner city hellhole school isn’t a true one.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
It is infantile and idiotic to pretend that shootings will ever go away.
Kirk had about 60 IQ points on all the idiots posting his quotes out of context.
You don't even understand what his point was. The man talks for hours at a time and leftist garbage plucks 1 sentence from a 60 minute speech and thinks it completely covers his position.
Youre being lied to and it is a tragedy that the vast majority of liberals are too stupid to form their own opinions.
Settling our difference through non-violent means is exactly what Charlie Kirk was doing. He believed in respectful dialogue and debate. He never treated opponents rudely or engaged in ad hominem attacks. By all accounts, he was a peaceful man.
We address our difference through communication, separation, or war. Charlie was a strong advocate for dialogue. He was murdered for trying it the peaceful way.
That’s what people have been saying about him but his opinions were too extreme for him to be a bridge between the parties. He was just a more intelligent, less belligerent version of Trump.
The people calling his positions extreme have no idea what his positions even were...
He's on the right and he's successful at swaying young minds so they hated him.
We have a true “school shooting” once every 4-5 years. A gang shooting, let alone a 2am drive by, at an inner city hellhole school isn’t a true one.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
The problem is, if you say let’s start “gun control” by addressing it with the mentally ill first or anyone on mind altering medication for depression or extreme anxiety or suicidal ideation and prevent them from getting weapons, a very reasonable, common sense position that many conservatives actually agree with and a position that would cut down 90% of shootings, you’ve attacked a sacred cow of the left and a “marginalized” group and so it’s a non-starter. I know, because I’ve had this conversation with many leftwing friends, and instead of embracing the debate on its merits, they immediately accuse you of being a Republican and trotting out Republican talking points. And the reason for this, in every case, is because either they or one of their children are on psychotropic meds, so it’s “personal.”
Anyway, the cavalier and inhumane responses on this thread and from many of these same lib friends about Kirk’s death has revealed the people who really do traffic in hate.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
The problem is, if you say let’s start “gun control” by addressing it with the mentally ill first or anyone on mind altering medication for depression or extreme anxiety or suicidal ideation and prevent them from getting weapons, a very reasonable, common sense position that many conservatives actually agree with and a position that would cut down 90% of shootings, you’ve attacked a sacred cow of the left and a “marginalized” group and so it’s a non-starter. I know, because I’ve had this conversation with many leftwing friends, and instead of embracing the debate on its merits, they immediately accuse you of being a Republican and trotting out Republican talking points. And the reason for this, in every case, is because either they or one of their children are on psychotropic meds, so it’s “personal.”
Anyway, the cavalier and inhumane responses on this thread and from many of these same lib friends about Kirk’s death has revealed the people who really do traffic in hate.
This poster is apparently saying that Dems are in favor of gun ownership by the mental ill. We all know Rs have fought tooth and nail to stop virtually all restrictions on gun ownership.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
It is infantile and idiotic to pretend that shootings will ever go away.
Kirk had about 60 IQ points on all the idiots posting his quotes out of context.
You don't even understand what his point was. The man talks for hours at a time and leftist garbage plucks 1 sentence from a 60 minute speech and thinks it completely covers his position.
Youre being lied to and it is a tragedy that the vast majority of liberals are too stupid to form their own opinions.
Your silly hypothetical is ridiculous. Kirk was changing the minds of millions. The left had to stop it.
He was preaching to the choir and didn’t have much of an influence outside of MAGA.
The chances of a sniper getting caught are very high and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s already been identified from videos. Kirk wasn’t being protected by the Secret Service so if there was a conspiracy, it would have been easy to pick a time and location where there was close to being no chance of being caught.
This shooter will never get caught. Fake facial mask, lifts, clothing to hide the hide the actual body shape, and wig and facial hair. The shooter is not someone who knew how best to hide their tracks. If he had helpers he got away without being seem except at the rooftop.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
The problem is, if you say let’s start “gun control” by addressing it with the mentally ill first or anyone on mind altering medication for depression or extreme anxiety or suicidal ideation and prevent them from getting weapons, a very reasonable, common sense position that many conservatives actually agree with and a position that would cut down 90% of shootings, you’ve attacked a sacred cow of the left and a “marginalized” group and so it’s a non-starter. I know, because I’ve had this conversation with many leftwing friends, and instead of embracing the debate on its merits, they immediately accuse you of being a Republican and trotting out Republican talking points. And the reason for this, in every case, is because either they or one of their children are on psychotropic meds, so it’s “personal.”
Anyway, the cavalier and inhumane responses on this thread and from many of these same lib friends about Kirk’s death has revealed the people who really do traffic in hate.
Or people pumping themselves full of exogenous foreign hormones...
