Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

> Charlie Kirk is hardly responsible for the 2nd amendment so trying to blame him for public shootings seems grossly unfair. So anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment deserves to be gunned down in public? Where does this end?

Please re-read the post you replied to; literally no one was blaming Kirk for public shootings happening. They were mentioning that Kirk has previously remarked about how shootings are ultimately a necessary trade-off for 2A rights. Seriously, you might also want to read the Newsweek article that the OP linked to; Kirk is quoted:

> "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death," Kirk said at a Turning Point USA Faith event on Wednesday, as reported by Media Matters for America. "That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—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."

Kirk SAID THIS; there's video of him saying this as well; I had to double check this myself as, putting aside the irony of his own death, how can anyone rationalise this way? Let alone say it out loud? I never heard of this guy before now and the more I read about him, the more I am astounded in the worst possibly ways.

> The left really needs to get a grip and look in the mirror. I have seen way too many 'normal' democrats mocking his death and implying it was justified because he was a 2nd amendment supporter. So are many of your friends, relatively, coworkers. When they see you express that opinion, we realize you're a sociopath and you're the fascist who thinks anyone who disagrees deserves death.

You are now ranting against a made-up argument that literally NO ONE made, but you.

> That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual

I'm not convinced political debates are good for anything else. Most people believe in things without really thinking about them. Especially politics.

If you stop and actually reason this stuff out, you're going to reach some deeply disturbing conclusions which border on wrongthink. If you try to spread the nuggets of truth you discovered, you just fail miserably at first. People will not be convinced.

They probably won't really refute you either. Maybe it's because you're right, maybe it's because they didn't even think about what you said and just responded emotionally, there's no way to know for sure because trying to test ideas in debates just doesn't work with the vast majority of human beings.

If you insist on this path, people start thinking you're acting superior to them with your unconventional ideas. At some point you start getting flagged and downvoted on sight. Then you start getting personally called out. Labeled as some "extremist". Maybe one day you become such a nuisance authorities actually knock on your door and arrest you. Maybe your ideas offend someone so much they assassinate you.

So I don't blame this guy at all for debating like a politician. If he debated seriously and won, would his opponents revise their entire belief systems and start following his logical footsteps? Of course not.

When is there not a school shooting?

I saw this post a day ago and upvoted; totally agree with your comment.

I too am trans.

Unfortunately, and you probably have already heard. ATF leaked that the rounds were etched with pro-trans messaging and the shooter is allegedly a trans man.

Assuming this all turns out to be true. This will lead to greater hatred; far more than before.

Hard to predict what will happen but let me give examples from history each time this has happened.

Christians were thrown to the lions in Ancient Rome.

Many times through history for the jews.

Muslims and crusader kings of spain.

Irish and chinese, the chinese exclusion act of 1882?

armenian ?genocide?

rwanda tutis.

We now have a situation where government must do something about the trans shooter issue. LAwfully they'd have to take each trans person to court to prove mental illness to ban them from 2nd amendment right. Technically... DSM5 is pretty clear about it...

Charlie Kirk was a theocrat. He hid behind freedom of speech with the intent to remove it for everyone else once in power. Freedom of speech is completely incompatible with theocracy. The reason people like Peter Thiel prop him up isn't to make people smart - it's to dumb them down and legitimize the worst in people for political gain.