In 2021, an audience member asked Kirk at what point conservatives had the green light to use guns on their political opponents, and while Kirk took care to at first “denounce” the question, he went into a longer answer that suggested he didn’t really disagree that much with its premise. Kirk’s sole objection to the idea, he explained, was that it was strategically foolish because it would create a pretext for a Democratic crackdown on the Right. He went on to suggest that the line for when it would be okay to take up arms and hurt people would be “when we exhaust every single one of our state[’s] ability to push back against what’s happening” — in other words, if his movement didn’t succeed through the normal political process. Two years later, he reiterated this, warning listeners that “you have a government that hates you, you have a traitor as the president,” so they should “buy weapons” and carry them around all the time in public in case they have to fight back.

  • ranandtoldthat@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    What are you suggesting? I really do not think Jacobin is endorsing the massacre of civilians by cops with that title. The article is about how despite the setbacks the strike should not be forgotten.

    • _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I’m not suggesting anything.
      I just think it’s ahistorical to be antiviolent, when free press was won through blood, sweat, and tears.