SPEAKS FOR ITSELF...SILENCE BROKEN ACCORDINGLY

Do you understand what FULL CONTEXT means? I don’t think you do, so I’ll help you out. It means including what someone says before and after a statement. You shitty media does that daily with Trump and other Republicans they don’t like. They do it because they know the sheep will swallow whatever they are saying without doing research for themselves.

And here's the point HA, caring about a child you don't know, have never met, being "confirmed" in their views that they can be a woman, or a man, or either, or neither, regardless of XX or XY might not be considered being concerned about their safety or well being in your world, or in this angry, perverse writer's world, but it would be considered being concerned in the eyes of others who might not happen to share your particular POV.

So for this "writer" to advance the idea that Kirk wasn't concerned about their well being is a straight out distortion of reality from Kirk's POV. This excerpt you've provided isn't an article, even though that's where this independent propaganda machine chose to locate it according to the URL, it properly belongs in the Op/Ed portion of their "newspaper". This man isn't a journalist here, he has no truth to share, only his own opinion, which isn't what any reasonable person would latch onto as proof of anything other than the judgement of the individual on a given topic.

And yes, some gun deaths are "acceptable". I consider the death of an intruder into a home who was shot by the homeowner to be an "acceptable" gun death. I consider the shooting of one who is attempting to rape another an "acceptable" gun death. I would consider the shooting of a person attempting to rob a bank to be an "acceptable" gun death.

And that's primarily the distinction HA, I know for a fact that the firearm is neither good nor evil, it is the person animating that firearm who is good or evil. Evil exists, as surely as the sun rises in the east each morning, good and evil exist in this world. Poverty exists. Always has, always will; there's no way to rid the world of evil, or poverty, or hate, or intolerance, or anger, or any of the other "bad" things in our lives. And that means that along with the good we have to accept and acknowledge that there will also be bad . . . the yin/yang . . . the "balance" of energy as you call it.

I don't consider any murder to be an acceptable gun death, much less a political assassination, but in order to have the ability to defend your family, your home, and yourself from predators with a gun one must accept the reality that others will misuse their access for defensive purposes and act offensively instead. The same is true for freedom of religion, or speech, or any of the fundamental liberties granted by Nature and Nature's God. They are there for good, but they will be misused by evil.

This political assassination was a manifestation of that evil. The murder of that lady on the light rail in NC was a manifestation of that evil. The shooting at EHS is a manifestation of that evil.

Your "journalist" imagines things that Kirk never said to dehumanize those who don't agree with him politically; it's pure propaganda, nothing more, nothing less; there's not even a fraction of a fraction of an ounce of truth in his words. Kirk never said that it was acceptable for a maniac to walk into a school and start shooting. He never said it, it never happened, it's a 100% complete and utter lie. Oh sure, if your parse his words and remove them from any and all context in an effort to divide the populace for political profit, I'm sure you can find something Kirk actually did say to effect that desire, but you, and I, and every rational human being on this planet knows that Kirk never, not once, said that having a maniac walk into a school and start shooting was an "acceptable" killing to preserve the right to keep and bear arms protected by our Second Amendment.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/

U R PARSING WORDS...THERE IS A VIDEO AND FULL TEXT

I DO NOT CONDOM THE KILLING,EVEN THO HIS PROJECTED PHRASES R ABHORRENT...U R REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE WORDS WERE IN FACT,UTTERED. U CAN NOT SPIN IT, NOR WHITE WASH IT......I WILL NOT ALLOW THE WORDS TO 'DISAPPEAR'......THEY WERE
NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT AND THEN THE REALITY OF THOSE WORDS CAME INTO BEING.

What was your purpose for making this post in the first place. Crappy opinions from haters aside, what was your goal here?

If one of your leftist leaders was murdered in broad daylight, on camera, the LAST thing I would ever consider doing is make a thread about how bad I thought that person was. We are not the same. Your character is much worse than I ever imagined.

I'm not trying to spin it HA, you, and your "journalist" are the ones seeking to spin it. Here's what Kirk said barely moments after the part you wish to parse and remove from its context . . . from the same snopes article that you linked to oh by the way . . .

"So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"

Now, how you move from that to the "journalists" remark about not being concerned about the safety and well being of children other than your own is something only the collectivist mind would be able to concoct from his statements that evening. You, and your "journalist", are the ones seeking to spin his words to advance your agenda for political profit, not I.

What Kirk said is that you are never going to get gun deaths to zero, that's a utopian pipe dream that will never, ever, come true as long as there is an armed citizenry, and he's right about that, isn't he. And he said that an armed citizenry was preferable to an unarmed one because, wait for it, here's the point he was making that you and your "journalist" want to remove, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't hunting, isn't even self-defense of home and family, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an armed citizenry here to protect their liberties in the manner that our founders and framers protected theirs if it ever became necessary to do so.

He never said killing children in a schools was "acceptable", he said it was unacceptable to leave those children so vulnerable, he said that they should have the same armed guards that our politicians do, that our other large gatherings of individuals do, that we had a duty to have a determined reductionist view on the subject, but anyone who thought laws would stop all gun deaths in this Union of ours didn't have a tether to reality. If there are guns around to defend, someone is going to misuse them to offend. Can't have one without the other, so yes, the rational approach is to seek a reduction via rational actions, putting armed guards in the schools to protect the safety and well-being of the children, rather than irrational ones like proclaiming schools and other "sensitive areas" to be "gun free zones" in laws which will never protect the safety and well-being of the children in those schools.

Very well said, PS. I just hope HA took the time to actually read that.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/


On the day after the April 2023 event, the Media Matters for America website published a transcript of Kirk's remarks, with the quote appearing in bold:

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?

CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
Advertisement:

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — 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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?



AGAIN, I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO 'DISAPPEAR......THE ANSWER IS TO ARM EVERYONE ,EVERYWHERE;WITH A GUN....AND THAT STOPS THE CARNAGE, I DON'T THINK SO....ASK TRUMP...TWICE HIS SAFETY WAS BREACHED. AND, WITH REGRET, SO WAS KIRK'S .....GUNS IN SCHOOLS IS NOT THE ANSWER,IT IS CONTROVERSIAL , AN INEFFECTIVE....,OMG,IF I HAD CHILDREN THEY WOULD BE HOME SCHOOLED...I WOULD NOT TRAUMATIZE THEM WITH CONCEPT OF 'FLIGHT OR FIGHT',WHICH IS WHAT THE PRESENT SITUATION IS.....I AM BEYOND GRATEFUL THAT I WENT TO SCHOOL/COLLEGE DECADES AGO.

AS SUCCINCT AS I CAN MAKE IT....DO NOT TELL ME THIS TRANSCRIPT IS BOGUS....HERE R HIS WORDS, FOREVER RECORDED ....ALLOWING U A GLIMPSE INSIDE HIS BRAIN. YES HE IS CORRECT, U WILL NEVER ACHIEVE ZERO....BUT THE CHANCES R GREATLY IMPROVED WHEN THE FRIGGIN LOOPHOLES R ADDRESSED AND CLOSED...BUT WE HAVE LOBBYISTS (NRA) WHO
WORK VERY HARD TO ASSURE THOSE LOOP HOLES REMAIN INTACT....THE OP WAS POSTED BECAUSE OF THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENING...I HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO LOOP NOR DO I WANT TO..I LIVED THRU THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY.

RICK U ASKED ''WHAT SILENCE DO U MEAN?" I WAS NOT INTENDING TO POST ON MMT FOR
A VERY LONG TIME....TILL AFTER MID TERMS OF NEXT YEAR....BUT THIS....THIS WAS A MOMENT IN TIME, WHEN SILENCE IS NOT ACCEPTED.

SNOPES ALSO RESEARCHED CLAIMS ABOUT EMPATHY, CIVIL RIGHT ACT AND OTHER QUESTIONABLE COMMENT...U DO THE RESEARCH....SNOPES SIX CLAIMS BY KIRK VERIFIED.

DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS A ''LOVE THY NEIGHBOR,AS U WOULD LOVE YOURSELF. INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES UNITY AND TRUTH......THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH EVIDENCE,VERIFIED THRU CREDIBLE SOURCES,THAT REFLECT A DIVISIVE AND DENIGRATING
ENTITY

homeagain wrote: THE OP WAS POSTED BECAUSE OF THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENING...I HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO LOOP NOR DO I WANT TO..I LIVED THRU THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY.

RICK U ASKED ''WHAT SILENCE DO U MEAN?" I WAS NOT INTENDING TO POST ON MMT FOR
A VERY LONG TIME....TILL AFTER MID TERMS OF NEXT YEAR....BUT THIS....THIS WAS A MOMENT IN TIME, WHEN SILENCE IS NOT ACCEPTED.

Sorry, but nobody is buying that BS. I never read your recent "I'm not posting anymore" post, but I've seen many of your priors (this isn't an airport, we don't need to know your departure plans)...

Anyway, you decided to come back and lets us know what you think about the guy that was just assassinated for peacefully debating leftists. You even bolded this so we wouldn't miss how you feel.

homeagain wrote: He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people.

It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male.

Everything in that is bullshit, but you wouldn't know because you don't do your own research. Here's on example that shoots down the "homophobic" BS.



And here is how you should act, as a human who still has a little humanity left. I don't agree with Jamie Lee Curtis's ideology, but I respect her for showing her humanity toward someone she disagreed with. You can learn from her...

www.youtube.com/shorts/afb3fLmPayY

Unfortunately most of the Youtube videos of her have been deleted since she is getting so much backlash from the demon base you seem to agree with.

homeagain wrote: AGAIN, I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO 'DISAPPEAR......THE ANSWER IS TO ARM EVERYONE ,EVERYWHERE;WITH A GUN....AND THAT STOPS THE CARNAGE, I DON'T THINK SO....ASK TRUMP...TWICE HIS SAFETY WAS BREACHED. AND, WITH REGRET, SO WAS KIRK'S .....GUNS IN SCHOOLS IS NOT THE ANSWER,IT IS CONTROVERSIAL , AN INEFFECTIVE....,OMG,IF I HAD CHILDREN THEY WOULD BE HOME SCHOOLED...I WOULD NOT TRAUMATIZE THEM WITH CONCEPT OF 'FLIGHT OR FIGHT',WHICH IS WHAT THE PRESENT SITUATION IS.....I AM BEYOND GRATEFUL THAT I WENT TO SCHOOL/COLLEGE DECADES AGO.

AS SUCCINCT AS I CAN MAKE IT....DO NOT TELL ME THIS TRANSCRIPT IS BOGUS....HERE R HIS WORDS, FOREVER RECORDED ....ALLOWING U A GLIMPSE INSIDE HIS BRAIN. YES HE IS CORRECT, U WILL NEVER ACHIEVE ZERO....BUT THE CHANCES R GREATLY IMPROVED WHEN THE FRIGGIN LOOPHOLES R ADDRESSED AND CLOSED...BUT WE HAVE LOBBYISTS (NRA) WHO
WORK VERY HARD TO ASSURE THOSE LOOP HOLES REMAIN INTACT....THE OP WAS POSTED BECAUSE OF THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENING...I HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO LOOP NOR DO I WANT TO..I LIVED THRU THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY.

RICK U ASKED ''WHAT SILENCE DO U MEAN?" I WAS NOT INTENDING TO POST ON MMT FOR
A VERY LONG TIME....TILL AFTER MID TERMS OF NEXT YEAR....BUT THIS....THIS WAS A MOMENT IN TIME, WHEN SILENCE IS NOT ACCEPTED.

SNOPES ALSO RESEARCHED CLAIMS ABOUT EMPATHY, CIVIL RIGHT ACT AND OTHER QUESTIONABLE COMMENT...U DO THE RESEARCH....SNOPES SIX CLAIMS BY KIRK VERIFIED.

DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS A ''LOVE THY NEIGHBOR,AS U WOULD LOVE YOURSELF. INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES UNITY AND TRUTH......THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH EVIDENCE,VERIFIED THRU CREDIBLE SOURCES,THAT REFLECT A DIVISIVE AND DENIGRATING
ENTITY

If we didn't have evil monsters targeting children in our schools, then we wouldn't need armed guards to protect them HA, but that isn't the reality we live in right now. And it has not a thing to do with "easy access to guns" and "loopholes" because guess what, we didn't have these problems back when you went to school, when I went to school, and there were no background checks back then, no waiting periods, no red-flag laws, no safe storage laws, and anyone over the age of 18 could have walked down to their local sporting goods store and bought themselves a brand spanking new Thompson sub-machine gun, or an actual weapon of war, an M16, for a few hundred dollars. Not a lot of people did mind you; but you could have if you wanted to, and we didn't have a couple dozen mass shootings a year at schools then either.

So what changed HA? Nonsense like what that "journalist" wrote, that's what changed. No longer is it permissible to agree to disagree and advocate for your position in the public sphere. What really changed was what happened during the first Trump administration when the collectivists sought to remove anyone associated with the administration from existing in public life without someone "getting in their face" and trying to silence any voice that wasn't 100% in alignment with their identity politics for political profit. But guess what, that hatred, that vitriol, which they spoke so freely back in the day is now costing them because what they are doing isn't aligned with the virtues of this Union. Here we disagree with someone while still recognizing their worth as an individual, as a person. Sure, their ideas may be bat guano crazy, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient reason to murder, to assassinate. Not here.

The last time this happened in our history, the assassinations created a tsunami wave of support for the causes espoused by the one who was assassinated. That's what Kirk's widow was talking about when she said that the lunatics who think assassination is a reasonable response to ideas have no idea what they've unleashed . . .