Just another christain hate preacher doing their best to incite violence in our communities, and force their hate upon whole communities.
I’m glad this nazi fuck is dead. I hope whoever killed him kills plenty more nazi fucks doing everything they can every single day to harm me, my loved ones, and my community.
'Those who live by
the swordgun violence will die bythe swordgun violence."And is often the case, so will innocent people who didn’t.
Bullshit. Those who live by gun violence will harm a disproportionate amount of people, causing individuals and society suffering.
I’m just… well, not necessarily happy, but satisfied that at least one shitgoblin who personally benefitted from countless tragedies was dealt the exact same blow he loved visiting on other people by proxy.
Just one person who profits from, let’s not sugarcoat it, evil, taken out by his very own methods. I know most of the world is incredibly unjust, but just sometimes we get synchronicities like these that signal that, hey, there ARE consequences for being a terrible human being, and not all who deserve it get punishment… but it MIGHT happen any day and it might be YOU it happens to next.
That must be an incredibly sobering thought for people who have never heard “no” in their lives and have an army of servants at their beck and call.
From what I’ve seen so far of the conservative’s reaction to this, it’s been anything but sobering. :(
They are literally crying and showing empathy. It’s not what Charlie would have wanted.
Speak for yourself, this is how I found out and it made my day.
I played Deadlock last night and out of nowhere, someone was like: “HAHAHA they shot that fascist piece of shit.” Someone else said:“it’s not confirmed he’s dead tho.” I was really hoping that it was the Orange Pedophile, but atill good news Overall
Leopard missed his face. Got him right on the neck.
It was a very tiny face, so, understandable
Unfortunate but necessary sacrifice
I disagree with the first part, lol. What were the odds he would’ve done a 180 and started preaching love, wisdom, cooperation and virtue? That he would at any point become something besides a blight on the world? Or that he would simply shut his mouth? This is a net positive, not unlike the killing of a mass rapist being a net positive, and the only ones who could suffer momentarily are his children (but maybe in time they’ll understand the same way the kids of this fictional rapist would/should also understand).
It’s a play on words of something Charlie Kirk themselves actually said.
They quite famously justified gun violence as “unfortunate but necessary”.
CK can rest in piss and get worms in his bones. The man offered the world not one iota of value. The world’s better for his passing and was made continuously worse through his existence.
I say it’s actually better than the rapist, because Charlie Kirk’s influence was far wider, and his words could and did lead to a far larger and more widespread volume of suffering.
Not so pro life now is he?
Surprised this wasn’t posted already.
Been reading about this all day
¯\(ツ)/¯
This is obviously not LAMF.
If someone said “it’s unfortunate that some people die in car crashes, but that doesn’t mean we should ban cars”, and then they’re killed by a drunk driver, would you call that LAMF? Was that person advocating for people to be killed in car crashes?
Obviously not.
In this case it would be akin to someone arguing that you should be allowed drink and drive getting hit by a drunk driver.
No it wouldn’t, that’s a false analogy.
He didn’t say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what’s analogous to ‘drink and drive’), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what’s equivalent to owning a car).
He literally said that we have to accept people are going to be shot and killed in the name of gun rights though
Maybe someone could own a gun. Possibly a shotgun for a farm or game hunting. But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun or an AR15.
So for this analogy: Shotgun = car with regular driver AR15 = car with a drunk driver
but interestingly, Kirk was killed by a single shot outside the range of an AR15. Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.
outside the range of an AR-15
Have you ever shot an AR? The effective range is about 600 yards and this shot was 140. That’s stupid easy with an AR. I’m not a great shot and I can easily shoot a <1-inch grouping at 150 yards.
That being said, it was a bolt action rifle which is inherently more accurate.
Semi-automatic muskets as god intended!
I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that’s such a dishonest comparison. Your post history seems reasonable enough so I’m hoping you won’t just be a dick about this. The difference is cars aren’t a tool specifically for killing people. You’re even changing the context in your comparison, this isn’t a drunk driver killing a dude, it’s someone intentionally hitting a man with their car. When the US gets a global reputation for being the place kids constantly take their parents’ cars to school to kill other kids it’ll be a fine point, until then it’s hurting your case.
For the record, I’m not condoning or celebrating this either. I’m not going to mourn the prick, but I don’t support openly murdering people and see no appeal in laughing or joking about it.
I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that’s such a dishonest comparison.
Honesty has nothing to do with it. People are calling it LAMF because they are falsely equivocating saying you should have the right to own a gun, with saying you should have the right to shoot people. That’s all there is to it. All I’ve done is point out the equivocation–in the absence of it, it’s obvious this isn’t LAMF.
Your post history seems reasonable enough so I’m hoping you won’t just be a dick about this.
I don’t believe you’ll find me ‘being a dick’ about anything in my history, so don’t worry.
The difference is cars aren’t a tool specifically for killing people.
That isn’t really relevant, though.
The point is simply that in order to something to be LAMF, the thing that was advocated for others must be the same thing that’s happened to the ‘LAMF’d’.
Kirk was advocating for maintaining the right to own a gun. Not for the right to shoot people.
On top of that, another aspect that’s required is that the thing being advocated for is intended by the 'LAMF’d to apply only to certain others, and the LAMF comes in when it ends up applying to them as well (hence “never thought they’d eat my face”). In this case, he was advocating for gun ownership to be a right, in other words, something that applies to everyone. It’s literally impossible for something that’s advocated for everyone to become a LAMF situation; the ‘for them but not me’ assumption is a necessary component of the ‘before’.
You’re even changing the context in your comparison, this isn’t a drunk driver killing a dude, it’s someone intentionally hitting a man with their car.
But Kirk advocated for the right of owning a gun, analogous to owning a car. Not with unlawfully (accidentally or not) shooting someone, analogous to (accidentally or not) running someone over (which thankfully is always unlawful, lol).
Thoughts?
Sorry, you’ve misunderstood, I don’t disagree about any of that. I was talking about your use of car ownership as a comparison to gun ownership. It’s something I see come up a lot in gun rights arguments and it’s always seemed so unreasonable to me because of the difference I mentioned being so vital (perhaps because I live in a country much less… enthusiastic about guns). There’s no reason for us to have that particular discussion and I have zero interest in doing so, I just took issue with your comparison, that’s all.
