The murder of Charlie Kirk

I don't remember what exchange you are talking about, but it's pretty obvious what the problem is. Nearly everyone in this forum should unfollow everyone they follow on social media. I'm sure they they think are entertaining themselves, keeping current, understanding how the other half lives, monitoring extremism, or whatever the ****. In fact, they are mostly just participating in a toxic system and poisoning their own minds.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Lead by example. Apparently, gov.com is OK with murdering boatloads of people without a trial because '...they were bringing drugs into the country...'

Rand Paul '...it is a war crime to kill people without a trial...'

JD Vance '...I don't give a *****...'

Maybe we can add this theory to the mix. CK was hosed down with hot lead by gov.com agents because he was bringing drugs into the country.

Just leave. I'm about to get 5 year visa for Colombia. I'll put you up.

I've seen articles that said 200 feet. But I've also seen articles that said 200 yards. The most reliable information I have seen seen this morning seems to suggest that it was 300-450 feet, so somewhere in between. I think that was about the distance in the Trump assassination attempt as well.

For the purposes of expertise, I think that probably means the perpetrator was neither a neophyte, nor necessarily an expert marksman. I also assume that the gun matters a lot, although I admittedly don't know much about guns.

Probably the right move.

So if you take a bottle of water from a shop during a demo that turns into a riot, what happens to you?

same

my initial gut reaction to the video was something is off here

that said, what put it over the top for me was djt refusing to allow a doctor to treat him... the red substance on his face in the video was never tested to verify that it was indeed blood

If you were a politician and you actually were shot, would you expect doctors to test the blood to confirm that it was indeed shot. That doesn't seem very realistic.

in this day and age i would want things to be as transparent as possible

One of three things will happen:

1. We’ll find out the shooter was liberal leaning
Trump, MAGA, etc: the radical left is a poison we will root out no matter what

2. We’ll find out the shooter had no political leaning
Trump, MAGA, etc: the radical left radicalized this person through their toxic rhetoric. We will root them out no matter what

3. We’ll find out the shooter was MAGA
Trump, MAGA, etc: the radical left hoax that this shooter was MAGA shows that the radical left is a poison we will root out no matter what

Sadly, this is probably closer to fact than fiction.

On an unrelated note, who keeps changing the title of this thread and why?

Of course the shooting was done by a psychotic liberal - who else would hate this guy enough to do something like that. My understanding is he was wearing a bullet proof vest - guy aimed for center mass and it ricocheted into his neck. I think we can also make a fair argument that's there's much more extreme violence against conservatives than liberals - the fact that Charlie is dead and Trump should of been dead but the shooter is ******ed speaks volumes.

What is the basis for your understanding? How could you possibly have an understanding at this point of where the shooter was aiming?

There's slow motion video of it - go look for the video and draw your own conclusions - that's what we're all doing here.

I just got finished reading this thread. I really don't care to post in it after this, but a few thoughts.

1) We are ****ed as a nation
2) We should never glorify someone that spews hate rhetoric like this and we sure shouldn't make him a martyr
3) Political assassinations are never the answer and something like this is despicable, but unfortunately seems to be more common
4) Our gun culture yet again rears it's ugly head
5) Did I say we are ****ed as a nation?

As far as the expertise of the shooter, it seems unlikely the person was aiming for the neck. So seems like it was a super lucky miss. As opposed to the Trump attempt, which was just a normal variance miss.

Of course right wing twitter who are all saying it had to be an expert (((Mossad))) marksman seem to be glossing over this, and pretending the person had to be clearly aiming for the neck.

I don't have to watch slow motion videos in order to know that I can't possibly know where the shooter was aiming. Shooters don't always hit the target precisely.

Maybe all these ****ing weirdos watching grainy slow motion videos of a person they revere being assassinated should spend that time talking to a therapist instead of crafting half cocked and frankly ******ed conspiracies

I don't know anything about highly trained snipers, most of whom I assume are current or former military. Would they ever aim for neck if the target was entirely exposed (i.e., no helmet, no Kevlar)? I wouldn't think so.

What? No, a reasonably-skilled hunter with a basic scope could nail that without much problem.

I haven’t seen anyone “celebrate” Kirk’s death but I have seen 10,000 tweets of people calling out people for celebrating. It’s like a deep right wing virtue signal circle jerk

Your nuts spews hate the man was about open debate and gave respect to any person debating him, a family man as well
Yes you may hate his politics and I’m sure he didn’t like yours

I’m not sure what gun control would have done he was by killed with a rifle the same rifle here in Canada anyone could own .

I agree your fxxcked as a nation but the blame goes to both sides and the left in the last while has been the violent one

It's as much about the gun culture we have created as it is about the guns we have access to.