| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:39 - Sep 15 with 1505 views | onehunglow |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:23 - Sep 15 by ncswan |
I see that you continue with your narrative of lumping conservatives in this "bad guy" column. As an American, I don't know that much about Starmer. But I am very familiar with Trump, and learning more about what Kirk was and stood for, which so far is all good.
So, what, in your opinion, is a "bad guy"? Here is a good example to help you base your opinion: Is publicly and falsely accusing Donald Trump in 61 (yes, that's sixty-one!) New York Times news stories from 2017-2019 (during his 1st Presidency), criminally (CRIMINALLY - the Democrat-led House of Representatives impeached him for his supposed criminal actions) "linking him to Russia and the phony Steele dossier, is that something bad or good? BTW, The New York Times has never apologized for their aiding and abetting of this fabricated story. So, who is/are the BAD guys here? Trump? Or, The NYTimes?
Is the FBI, during this same timeframe, which has been found complicit in this devious ploy initiated by Hillary Clinton and her 2016 Presidential campaign, both groups knowing that the dossier was a collection of made up lies, are they, James Comey, then FBI director, his deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, and Hillary Clinton and her staff, to be considered the good guys or bad guys for leading Americans to believe that Trump was illegally tied to Russia and based their opinions on the Steele dossier? So, who is/are the bad guys here? Trump? Or, the FBI director, dep director, Clinton, and her top aides? None of them have had to stand trial, (or have even apologized) and nor were they publicly shamed for their roles in Trump's wrongfully, trumped-up treasonous acts!! Let's include James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency in this group as well since they also had a huge influence on Congress and others in the top levels of the US government!
By the way, you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. He was one of the few good guys in this part of the American dog-eat-dog political world. He invited anyone, ANYONE, to debate him in a civil way. He never, NEVER got on his social media sites urging his followers to "take out", "remove from our society", and other code words or phrases against his opposition. Just look at how many of his opposition's influencers have taken the other route, the hate-speech route, on their social media sites where they promote deadly actions to be taken in a criminal, code-like way. |
Anyone demanding women give birth to a child , no matter what , is a “ good guy” as that view is simply bad
Now that is the opinion of many
The pitiful religious underbelly of the USA is appalling
God bless America eh
Religion teaches intolerance and this was the thrust of much of his thinking
I doubt very much Trump is a born again Christian seeing Jesus as dying for our sins more a disingenuous , conniving felon who does nothing but manipulate for his own ends |  |
|  |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:39 - Sep 15 with 1508 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:23 - Sep 15 by ncswan |
I see that you continue with your narrative of lumping conservatives in this "bad guy" column. As an American, I don't know that much about Starmer. But I am very familiar with Trump, and learning more about what Kirk was and stood for, which so far is all good.
So, what, in your opinion, is a "bad guy"? Here is a good example to help you base your opinion: Is publicly and falsely accusing Donald Trump in 61 (yes, that's sixty-one!) New York Times news stories from 2017-2019 (during his 1st Presidency), criminally (CRIMINALLY - the Democrat-led House of Representatives impeached him for his supposed criminal actions) "linking him to Russia and the phony Steele dossier, is that something bad or good? BTW, The New York Times has never apologized for their aiding and abetting of this fabricated story. So, who is/are the BAD guys here? Trump? Or, The NYTimes?
Is the FBI, during this same timeframe, which has been found complicit in this devious ploy initiated by Hillary Clinton and her 2016 Presidential campaign, both groups knowing that the dossier was a collection of made up lies, are they, James Comey, then FBI director, his deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, and Hillary Clinton and her staff, to be considered the good guys or bad guys for leading Americans to believe that Trump was illegally tied to Russia and based their opinions on the Steele dossier? So, who is/are the bad guys here? Trump? Or, the FBI director, dep director, Clinton, and her top aides? None of them have had to stand trial, (or have even apologized) and nor were they publicly shamed for their roles in Trump's wrongfully, trumped-up treasonous acts!! Let's include James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency in this group as well since they also had a huge influence on Congress and others in the top levels of the US government!
By the way, you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. He was one of the few good guys in this part of the American dog-eat-dog political world. He invited anyone, ANYONE, to debate him in a civil way. He never, NEVER got on his social media sites urging his followers to "take out", "remove from our society", and other code words or phrases against his opposition. Just look at how many of his opposition's influencers have taken the other route, the hate-speech route, on their social media sites where they promote deadly actions to be taken in a criminal, code-like way. |
I didn't get past the first line becaise I didn't lump Kirk in as a bad guy andjust FYI, Starmer is a Labour Prime Minister.
if you paid better attention you'd see I have been highly critical of left and right and I consider myself neither and yet both at the same time because I think a good idea is a good idea wherever it comes from and party political ideology is a large part of the problem.
I don't dislike Trump because he's a Conservative, I dislike him (amomgst other things) for sidling up to Putin to try and scare Ukraine into signing a bad minerals deal, for making threats to allies, for saying he'd have Greenland even if it was by force. He made threats to Canada also. If he treats his friends that way what kind of person is he?
I have alrrady posted my reasons for not agreeing with Kirk with the abortion stance being a large one and I also have a lot of trouble accepting somebody to be a god fearing Christian who also thinks everybody should have guns. How many people are shot every year in your country?
BTW, a bit of whataboutery doesn't make the people you defend the good guys so maybe read my post again, I said there were a lot of bad people and too many people like Kirk and Trump...and Starmer. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:53 - Sep 15 with 1475 views | shingle |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 16:11 - Sep 12 by swan_si |
Take him in through the front door straight out the back, carry out the death penalty and Bury him at sea. |
Na a quick death would be to easy just make his life a living hell so every day he will wake up every morning knowing his day is going to be unbearable, every potential murderer who is caught and found guilty beyond all doubt should be well aware that would be the punishment that awaits them. these scumbags do not deserve to have any human rights | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:59 - Sep 15 with 1461 views | shingle |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:27 - Sep 12 by SullutaCreturned |
yes. all those school shootings and still they defend it.
On a seperate note, I was surprised to find out my son knows quite a bit about the victim and his views. We haven't talked a lot about it so all I really know is my son disagrees with his views on abortion but worryingly, my son seems to be agreeing with what Trump is doing. I always have encouraged him to think for himself and have his own opinions but honestly, he's turning into a bit of a twot. I can see us properly falling out if his political views carry on down that road because I have since read up on Kirk and I find it worrying that my son would agree with some of Kirk's views. |
Maybe he finds your views worrying as well and sees you as a bit of a twot. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:10 - Sep 15 with 1363 views | ncswan |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:39 - Sep 15 by SullutaCreturned |
I didn't get past the first line becaise I didn't lump Kirk in as a bad guy andjust FYI, Starmer is a Labour Prime Minister.
if you paid better attention you'd see I have been highly critical of left and right and I consider myself neither and yet both at the same time because I think a good idea is a good idea wherever it comes from and party political ideology is a large part of the problem.
I don't dislike Trump because he's a Conservative, I dislike him (amomgst other things) for sidling up to Putin to try and scare Ukraine into signing a bad minerals deal, for making threats to allies, for saying he'd have Greenland even if it was by force. He made threats to Canada also. If he treats his friends that way what kind of person is he?
I have alrrady posted my reasons for not agreeing with Kirk with the abortion stance being a large one and I also have a lot of trouble accepting somebody to be a god fearing Christian who also thinks everybody should have guns. How many people are shot every year in your country?
BTW, a bit of whataboutery doesn't make the people you defend the good guys so maybe read my post again, I said there were a lot of bad people and too many people like Kirk and Trump...and Starmer. |
I re-read your post and see that I made a mistake. You're correct in that you didn't lump Trump, Kirk, and your PM Starmer in the list of bad guys. My bad.
And, I agree with your statement "that you think a good idea is a good idea wherever it comes from". I know Charlie Kirk would have agreed to that.
However, I would say that Kirk would never think that "everybody should have guns." He would say that every law-abiding person has the right to own a gun.
The US Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. I own several but know plenty of people who do not own any. Furthermore, 99.9% of the US citizens who own guns use them responsibly. Why should I give up my right to own a gun that I use for hunting and trap and skeet shooting purposes? BTW, people who have been convicted of a felony (Federak crime) are not allowed to own a gun.
Yes, Kirk's shooter could legally own a gun. But we could lay blame on friends and family, and potentially those social media platforms he used, for not alerting officials and getting him medical attention based on the views and statements he was posting and seeing that he was potentially a threat to society. If he had been found mentally unstable, then his right to own a gun would be in question.
Historical Context (Late 18th Century) regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Prior to independence and while under British rule, American colonists had to deal with illegal searches and imprisonment by the British Military.
Militia focus: In 1791, the U.S. had no large standing army. Defense relied heavily on state militias made up of ordinary citizens. The opening phrase — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — reflects that context.
Suspicion of centralized power: Even after gaining independence, many Americans feared a powerful federal army could threaten liberty. Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was partly about ensuring citizens could resist tyranny if necessary.
Everyday use of arms: Firearms were also common tools for hunting and protection on the frontier, so the right had both civic and personal dimensions. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 05:34 - Sep 16 with 1142 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
Nice deconstruction of all the best points the author could make about the things that made the Left decide he was a Fascist who literally thousands could celebrate publicly in some kind of cathartic release of rage that goes back about 10 months.
Nothing about how he had the balls to go to college campuses to get abused as he tried to start a dialogue.
Nothing about how Kirk never talked down to anyone, including the most moronic morons in moronvland.
I don't expect an ounce of empathy from the Left anymore. In fact, I welcome your hate, maintaining faith there are still some people who can witness it and flip.
But the world needs more guys like Charlie Kirk. On both sides. We lost this one, only because of a lost soul radicalized to believe he was shooting Adolf. |  |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:44 - Sep 16 with 822 views | pete |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 05:34 - Sep 16 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Nice deconstruction of all the best points the author could make about the things that made the Left decide he was a Fascist who literally thousands could celebrate publicly in some kind of cathartic release of rage that goes back about 10 months.
Nothing about how he had the balls to go to college campuses to get abused as he tried to start a dialogue.
Nothing about how Kirk never talked down to anyone, including the most moronic morons in moronvland.
I don't expect an ounce of empathy from the Left anymore. In fact, I welcome your hate, maintaining faith there are still some people who can witness it and flip.
But the world needs more guys like Charlie Kirk. On both sides. We lost this one, only because of a lost soul radicalized to believe he was shooting Adolf. |
whilst no fan by any means a tragedy for all wether right or left | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:49 - Sep 16 with 815 views | pete |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:44 - Sep 16 by pete |
whilst no fan by any means a tragedy for all wether right or left |
And untill leader of all partys right or left stop the blame game the usa will spin into a squalid place I dissagreed with most of what he has been speaking about but here in uk we would say i dissagree whith you but will defend your right to say it via free speach thats what ALL should be saying to quell the blame game NO winners from either side | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:59 - Sep 16 with 797 views | ItchySphincter |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:10 - Sep 15 by ncswan |
I re-read your post and see that I made a mistake. You're correct in that you didn't lump Trump, Kirk, and your PM Starmer in the list of bad guys. My bad.
And, I agree with your statement "that you think a good idea is a good idea wherever it comes from". I know Charlie Kirk would have agreed to that.
However, I would say that Kirk would never think that "everybody should have guns." He would say that every law-abiding person has the right to own a gun.
The US Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. I own several but know plenty of people who do not own any. Furthermore, 99.9% of the US citizens who own guns use them responsibly. Why should I give up my right to own a gun that I use for hunting and trap and skeet shooting purposes? BTW, people who have been convicted of a felony (Federak crime) are not allowed to own a gun.
Yes, Kirk's shooter could legally own a gun. But we could lay blame on friends and family, and potentially those social media platforms he used, for not alerting officials and getting him medical attention based on the views and statements he was posting and seeing that he was potentially a threat to society. If he had been found mentally unstable, then his right to own a gun would be in question.
Historical Context (Late 18th Century) regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Prior to independence and while under British rule, American colonists had to deal with illegal searches and imprisonment by the British Military.
Militia focus: In 1791, the U.S. had no large standing army. Defense relied heavily on state militias made up of ordinary citizens. The opening phrase — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — reflects that context.
Suspicion of centralized power: Even after gaining independence, many Americans feared a powerful federal army could threaten liberty. Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was partly about ensuring citizens could resist tyranny if necessary.
Everyday use of arms: Firearms were also common tools for hunting and protection on the frontier, so the right had both civic and personal dimensions. |
If loonies didn’t have guns people wouldn’t get shot. Your government receives huge funds from the NRA, it’s not a secret. Nothing to do with the second amendment |  |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:03 - Sep 16 with 796 views | ItchySphincter |
The outpouring of grief on here for Charlie Kirk is bordering in fanatical, the anger is a little disturbing. Where’s the outrage for the all the brown people getting the shit kicked out of them daily in the middle-east, or the innocents in Eastern Europe, or god knows where else? | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:43 - Sep 16 with 769 views | onehunglow |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:03 - Sep 16 by ItchySphincter |
The outpouring of grief on here for Charlie Kirk is bordering in fanatical, the anger is a little disturbing. Where’s the outrage for the all the brown people getting the shit kicked out of them daily in the middle-east, or the innocents in Eastern Europe, or god knows where else? |
Not forgetting the Israeli hostages taken by lovable Hamas , praised by Corby , as freedom fighters ,
Release the buggers | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:45 - Sep 16 with 770 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:03 - Sep 16 by ItchySphincter |
The outpouring of grief on here for Charlie Kirk is bordering in fanatical, the anger is a little disturbing. Where’s the outrage for the all the brown people getting the shit kicked out of them daily in the middle-east, or the innocents in Eastern Europe, or god knows where else? |
I've said it before, there are more than 110 armed conflicts in the World. The situation in places like Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, the Congo, Northern Nigeria etc. is appalling but just overlooked by our press.
In Congo the ongoing conflict has accounted for 6 million deaths but we get no coverage.
I think it's more than fair to say that what we get presented with is very subjective. |  |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:48 - Sep 16 with 767 views | shingle |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:03 - Sep 16 by ItchySphincter |
The outpouring of grief on here for Charlie Kirk is bordering in fanatical, the anger is a little disturbing. Where’s the outrage for the all the brown people getting the shit kicked out of them daily in the middle-east, or the innocents in Eastern Europe, or god knows where else? |
And then you have these Headers marching for Palestine yet you hear nothing from them about the atrocities that are being carried out in places like Nigeria fcuking bunch of hypocrites who just jump on a bandwagon looking for attention. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:48 - Sep 16 with 764 views | onehunglow |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:45 - Sep 16 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I've said it before, there are more than 110 armed conflicts in the World. The situation in places like Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, the Congo, Northern Nigeria etc. is appalling but just overlooked by our press.
In Congo the ongoing conflict has accounted for 6 million deaths but we get no coverage.
I think it's more than fair to say that what we get presented with is very subjective. |
Itch might have missed that lot
Focus for the beautiful better human left human beings is Palestine
It’s a great gig like anti apartheid demoes | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:51 - Sep 16 with 760 views | ItchySphincter |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:43 - Sep 16 by onehunglow |
Not forgetting the Israeli hostages taken by lovable Hamas , praised by Corby , as freedom fighters ,
Release the buggers |
Too many to list, but the evangelist TikToker is more important. | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:53 - Sep 16 with 755 views | ItchySphincter |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:48 - Sep 16 by onehunglow |
Itch might have missed that lot
Focus for the beautiful better human left human beings is Palestine
It’s a great gig like anti apartheid demoes |
I was making a point, not a list. It was obvious but no surprise I have to explain. | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:54 - Sep 16 with 755 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:48 - Sep 16 by shingle |
And then you have these Headers marching for Palestine yet you hear nothing from them about the atrocities that are being carried out in places like Nigeria fcuking bunch of hypocrites who just jump on a bandwagon looking for attention. |
They don’t care about those conflicts because the Jews aren’t involved. |  |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:42 - Sep 16 with 702 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 19:54 - Sep 16 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
They don’t care about those conflicts because the Jews aren’t involved. |
I've no idea about the motive but there are some horrendous wars going on that are completely overlooked, you have to ask why? | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:44 - Sep 16 with 701 views | ncswan |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 18:59 - Sep 16 by ItchySphincter |
If loonies didn’t have guns people wouldn’t get shot. Your government receives huge funds from the NRA, it’s not a secret. Nothing to do with the second amendment |
The gun used by the political assassin was a gift from his grandfather. The cowardly killer dumped his rifle, a 30.06 with scope, in the nearby woods after leaving his sniper perch. He then calls his transitioning male-to-female lover, telling him/her where it is, and asking him/her to pick up the rifle, so that there would be no evidence. I don't think the cowardly killer will be asking to be described as someone who is mentally-impaired ("loonie") during the trial.
The NRA (Nat'l Rifle Assn) is a legally-registered lobbyist organization or group but doesn't give any funds to the US Federal Government. However, just like other lobbyists, it has to report where its funding goes:
In 2024, the NRA reportedly spent about $2,040,000 on federal lobbying.
In 2025 (so far, as of mid-year), it has spent about $1,010,000.
In the 2023 cycle, the NRA spent about $2,305,000 on lobbying.
Source - OpenSecrets
How That Compares / Where It Ranks:
In 2024, the NRA was ranked 356 out of about 9,200 organizations tracked by OpenSecrets for lobbying spend.
That means the NRA is not among the very top spenders (which are often large corporations, industry associations, or major trade groups spending tens or hundreds of millions annually), but it's still a significant player, especially within issue‐areas like gun rights.
Other gun-rights related groups are increasingly spending more; for example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is being reported in some sources as having overtaken the NRA in lobbying strength on certain issues. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:56 - Sep 16 with 685 views | majorraglan |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:44 - Sep 16 by ncswan |
The gun used by the political assassin was a gift from his grandfather. The cowardly killer dumped his rifle, a 30.06 with scope, in the nearby woods after leaving his sniper perch. He then calls his transitioning male-to-female lover, telling him/her where it is, and asking him/her to pick up the rifle, so that there would be no evidence. I don't think the cowardly killer will be asking to be described as someone who is mentally-impaired ("loonie") during the trial.
The NRA (Nat'l Rifle Assn) is a legally-registered lobbyist organization or group but doesn't give any funds to the US Federal Government. However, just like other lobbyists, it has to report where its funding goes:
In 2024, the NRA reportedly spent about $2,040,000 on federal lobbying.
In 2025 (so far, as of mid-year), it has spent about $1,010,000.
In the 2023 cycle, the NRA spent about $2,305,000 on lobbying.
Source - OpenSecrets
How That Compares / Where It Ranks:
In 2024, the NRA was ranked 356 out of about 9,200 organizations tracked by OpenSecrets for lobbying spend.
That means the NRA is not among the very top spenders (which are often large corporations, industry associations, or major trade groups spending tens or hundreds of millions annually), but it's still a significant player, especially within issue‐areas like gun rights.
Other gun-rights related groups are increasingly spending more; for example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is being reported in some sources as having overtaken the NRA in lobbying strength on certain issues. |
From what I’ve read theres money for lobbying figures and then direct contribution to support political “allies” - in 2020 the NRA trousered up $50m to support DT and the Republicans. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 21:12 - Sep 16 with 665 views | jacksfullaces |
is there any evidence kirk changed or developed his views on anything, or was he always defending a binary (no pun) position? with his ideology rooted in little other than the interpretation of a book thrown together a couple of millenia ago in the middle east by the pseudo intellectuals of their time, having a black and white opinion (no pun) on every modern social issue is quite a feat for him and presumably most of the christian right. The left/right nonsense shows exactly the level of debate that surrounded his life and death and is a sad state of affairs for the modern world. I wouldn't identify with either but I recognise ignorance when I see it. And there has been plenty evidenced in this thread, with a little bit of historic context to provide some covering fire. | | | |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 21:22 - Sep 16 with 655 views | ItchySphincter |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 21:12 - Sep 16 by jacksfullaces |
is there any evidence kirk changed or developed his views on anything, or was he always defending a binary (no pun) position? with his ideology rooted in little other than the interpretation of a book thrown together a couple of millenia ago in the middle east by the pseudo intellectuals of their time, having a black and white opinion (no pun) on every modern social issue is quite a feat for him and presumably most of the christian right. The left/right nonsense shows exactly the level of debate that surrounded his life and death and is a sad state of affairs for the modern world. I wouldn't identify with either but I recognise ignorance when I see it. And there has been plenty evidenced in this thread, with a little bit of historic context to provide some covering fire. |
Fantastic. | |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 22:28 - Sep 16 with 591 views | DJack |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 05:34 - Sep 16 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Nice deconstruction of all the best points the author could make about the things that made the Left decide he was a Fascist who literally thousands could celebrate publicly in some kind of cathartic release of rage that goes back about 10 months.
Nothing about how he had the balls to go to college campuses to get abused as he tried to start a dialogue.
Nothing about how Kirk never talked down to anyone, including the most moronic morons in moronvland.
I don't expect an ounce of empathy from the Left anymore. In fact, I welcome your hate, maintaining faith there are still some people who can witness it and flip.
But the world needs more guys like Charlie Kirk. On both sides. We lost this one, only because of a lost soul radicalized to believe he was shooting Adolf. |
If you think hate is just a thing of the left then you are a bigger fool than I perceived you to be. You also forgot that Charlie MADE MONEY doing the touring and loading up his videos and he believed deaths from guns was a perfectly acceptable cost of gun-rights and died under a banner that said "Prove me wrong" - the irony is off the scale.
You said "We lost this one, only because of a lost soul radicalized to believe he was shooting Adolf." As yet, we have no idea of the actual reason/motivation for this crime but I also suspect that he will turn out to be , as you put it, "a lost soul". Outside the US, many think America is losing its soul but that's a topic for another time.
Finally, If you believe that a man who suggests kids may get benefit from watching executions or that black women are not as intelligent then I would say that reflects VERY poorly on you. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 12:46 - Sep 17 with 272 views | onehunglow |
| Charlie Kirk shot. on 20:10 - Sep 15 by ncswan |
I re-read your post and see that I made a mistake. You're correct in that you didn't lump Trump, Kirk, and your PM Starmer in the list of bad guys. My bad.
And, I agree with your statement "that you think a good idea is a good idea wherever it comes from". I know Charlie Kirk would have agreed to that.
However, I would say that Kirk would never think that "everybody should have guns." He would say that every law-abiding person has the right to own a gun.
The US Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. I own several but know plenty of people who do not own any. Furthermore, 99.9% of the US citizens who own guns use them responsibly. Why should I give up my right to own a gun that I use for hunting and trap and skeet shooting purposes? BTW, people who have been convicted of a felony (Federak crime) are not allowed to own a gun.
Yes, Kirk's shooter could legally own a gun. But we could lay blame on friends and family, and potentially those social media platforms he used, for not alerting officials and getting him medical attention based on the views and statements he was posting and seeing that he was potentially a threat to society. If he had been found mentally unstable, then his right to own a gun would be in question.
Historical Context (Late 18th Century) regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Prior to independence and while under British rule, American colonists had to deal with illegal searches and imprisonment by the British Military.
Militia focus: In 1791, the U.S. had no large standing army. Defense relied heavily on state militias made up of ordinary citizens. The opening phrase — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — reflects that context.
Suspicion of centralized power: Even after gaining independence, many Americans feared a powerful federal army could threaten liberty. Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was partly about ensuring citizens could resist tyranny if necessary.
Everyday use of arms: Firearms were also common tools for hunting and protection on the frontier, so the right had both civic and personal dimensions. |
Why do you need to hunt
Enough shops around surely and there’s always on line | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
