And even that's too simplistic. His point was, you will always have gun deaths anyway, you can't get them to zero, so we might as well protect guns, so we can protect all our other rights, like free speech.
It's was nearly the opposite of the callous-sounding out of context quote the bot farms are smearing him with. It's a true quote, but the context was a lot more gentle than 'gun deaths are worth it' makes it sound. He just said look at it pragmatically.
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
Not exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
These people think they're so witty and intelligent while being mouth breathing retards. It honestly makes me sick.
Hurr durr he supported the 2nd Amendment therefore he wants gun violence. You know how when you teach a 5 year old about money for the first time, and when they first learn that fiat currency can just be printed, they invariably say why dont we just print more money and give it to people so no one would have to be poor? Same energy as retards who want to ban guns to reduce gun violence.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad, since recalling back to the scamdemic, so many of them support printing a ton of money to solve poverty as well. Mentally they might as well be five year olds, and it's infuriating just how smug they often are in their unbridled ignorance.
It's enough to convince someone that a peasant caste might actually be entirely warranted and maybe there was a reason so many societies had them throughout history. Stupid adult children that need to be corralled and directed lest they become a destructive force.
People will say ancient societies were more advanced than we give them credit for and then disregard everything they thought about because it's icky to their faggot brains.
Yes, the majority of humans are midwits or retards, and should be managed as such.
Women ALL belong in the above group, and should be managed like children/retards.
This is why the Founders restricted the franchise so heavily. Giving the average person voting rights is like giving a hyperactive child a loaded gun, and expecting a good outcome.
Charlie Kirk understood, correctly, that a population of hundreds of millions of people who have the right to own guns will reliably generate more than zero firearm deaths a year. That’s what happens when people are imbued with both free will and freedom; invariably, someone will abuse that freedom and create harm.
If you support rights only so long as they never harm a living soul, then your support is nonexistent because it is contingent upon impossible conditions. Charlie wasn’t endorsing gun violence. He was acknowledging that we, collectively, pay a price statistically measured in lives so that we may enjoy a variety of rights and freedoms.
Another radical leftist abusing our gun rights to murder his political and cultural enemy is not a denunciation of our gun rights. It is, after all, illegal to murder someone outside of self-defense and legal law enforcement situations. If criminals are allowed to completely dictate our rights, then we will have no rights at all.
Leftists love using the UK as an example of "see gun control works, gun deaths are near zero".
The thing is, the total deaths didn't go down, they just changed from gun deaths to knife deaths.
Of course that doesn't matter to leftists, because their goal is to remove guns from their opponents hands so there is no meaningful resistance when the killing starts.
This is actually one of the most reasonable takes I've seen coming from Reddit. It's still absolutely retarded and anyone over the age of 12 should be deeply and permanently embarrassed that they don't know the difference between support and tolerance, but at least it's saying the assassination was bad. That's a massive step up from the average subhuman take you'd expect to see on that shithole.
Its because its cowardice instead of malice. They are still happy about what happened, but they recognize its a bad look. So they give a milquetoast disavowment of the action but still dance on his grave that he caused it to happen to himself and therefore its still a good thing.
Its a step up only in that it shows a spark of humanity left, one that is self preserving, instead of being completely lost in their evil.
Yep, sounds like 2 Faggot leftoids I know who I'm officially no longer friends with.
They're intelligent enough to know that outright dancing on his grave looks evil (they don't care, they're overjoyed internally) (also they know I'd have beaten them like dogs if they had said anything celebratory since we were at a mutual friend's house the day it happened) but they can't fully contain themselves and make small justifying statements for why it's ok it happened
Martyrs speak harder than prisons. Even if an entire society is wiped out, there will be more people willing burn the world to gain or keep power. They will seek out those methods and use them.
Yes, I'm sure Charlie Kirk supported assassinating people you don't agree with, in broad daylight, in front of a crowd.
It's amazing how Redditors can throw words together to sound so superficially smart that turns into utterly ridiculous blather with only 3 seconds of thinking. It's the mental equivalent of that 15 calorie potato chip that dissolves in your mouth and feels like you didn't eat anything.
Just repeal or amend US Code 230. A federal law that immunizes platforms like reddit from most lawsuits. It was part of the Communications "Decency" Act.
Then they can be dragged into court and the discovery process will unmask who is paying all these "super mods" to boost mentally ill agitators.
Dang, that's so weird, I remember he supported the right to own a gun, not murdering someone in cold blood via assassination.
What they’re referring to is when he said that gun deaths are a necessary circumstance for us to preserve our 2A rights
And even that's too simplistic. His point was, you will always have gun deaths anyway, you can't get them to zero, so we might as well protect guns, so we can protect all our other rights, like free speech.
It's was nearly the opposite of the callous-sounding out of context quote the bot farms are smearing him with. It's a true quote, but the context was a lot more gentle than 'gun deaths are worth it' makes it sound. He just said look at it pragmatically.
His quote was his quote. Words unfortunately matter.
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
Doesn't matter either way. He was right.
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
I’m not saying he supported political violence
He said that some gun deaths are necessary for us to still have our 2A rights. His death is, unfortunately, a gun death.
I see you are just a retarded faggot. The Twitter morons including the one in the OP are celebrating it.
I don’t see any celebration in OP’s post
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
It literally is a gun death.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Did Charlie Kirk say he supported murder? Yes or no.
No.
He said that he believes that some gun deaths are worth it if it means the 2A is protected
Fuck off demon.
No thanks
Yes, but so does context.
https://xcancel.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
Yes, that was something else he said.
Both things are things that he said. They are not interchangeable.
It's the same fucking 50 second clip.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
You can't reason with goalposting shifting, shitlib faggots like Modeler. Save yourself the rage.
Yes, it is. And in that 50 second clip, he says several things.
I’m deeply saddened by violence too, but where he and I disagree is that I don’t think any gun deaths are worth it to protect 2A rights.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
Okay so then you’re saying the user in OP’s post is correct
Not exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
I’m sorry, who is saying that people want others to be shot? I agree that wouldn’t be a reasonable way to look at it.
Yes, I know
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
He’s saying that gun deaths are worth it in order to secure the 2A
Are you implying he’s saying other deaths, but not his?
Not they don't, because people like yourself will ignore meaning, intent, or context and invent your own.
If words don't matter then why are we debating what he said?
These people think they're so witty and intelligent while being mouth breathing retards. It honestly makes me sick.
Hurr durr he supported the 2nd Amendment therefore he wants gun violence. You know how when you teach a 5 year old about money for the first time, and when they first learn that fiat currency can just be printed, they invariably say why dont we just print more money and give it to people so no one would have to be poor? Same energy as retards who want to ban guns to reduce gun violence.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad, since recalling back to the scamdemic, so many of them support printing a ton of money to solve poverty as well. Mentally they might as well be five year olds, and it's infuriating just how smug they often are in their unbridled ignorance.
It's enough to convince someone that a peasant caste might actually be entirely warranted and maybe there was a reason so many societies had them throughout history. Stupid adult children that need to be corralled and directed lest they become a destructive force.
People will say ancient societies were more advanced than we give them credit for and then disregard everything they thought about because it's icky to their faggot brains.
Yes, the majority of humans are midwits or retards, and should be managed as such.
Women ALL belong in the above group, and should be managed like children/retards.
Fuck racial integration.
What's funny is the globalists understand this, and are directing them accordingly. It's only conservatives that pretend otherwise
Once again reinforcing my belief that Conservatism is also an enemy to me and my interests.
This is why the Founders restricted the franchise so heavily. Giving the average person voting rights is like giving a hyperactive child a loaded gun, and expecting a good outcome.
You can't reason with demons that's why they get tard rage at the media that tells like it is.
Charlie Kirk understood, correctly, that a population of hundreds of millions of people who have the right to own guns will reliably generate more than zero firearm deaths a year. That’s what happens when people are imbued with both free will and freedom; invariably, someone will abuse that freedom and create harm.
If you support rights only so long as they never harm a living soul, then your support is nonexistent because it is contingent upon impossible conditions. Charlie wasn’t endorsing gun violence. He was acknowledging that we, collectively, pay a price statistically measured in lives so that we may enjoy a variety of rights and freedoms.
Another radical leftist abusing our gun rights to murder his political and cultural enemy is not a denunciation of our gun rights. It is, after all, illegal to murder someone outside of self-defense and legal law enforcement situations. If criminals are allowed to completely dictate our rights, then we will have no rights at all.
Leftists love using the UK as an example of "see gun control works, gun deaths are near zero".
The thing is, the total deaths didn't go down, they just changed from gun deaths to knife deaths.
Of course that doesn't matter to leftists, because their goal is to remove guns from their opponents hands so there is no meaningful resistance when the killing starts.
I am just over here laughing that bluesky users call their posts 'skeets'.
This is actually one of the most reasonable takes I've seen coming from Reddit. It's still absolutely retarded and anyone over the age of 12 should be deeply and permanently embarrassed that they don't know the difference between support and tolerance, but at least it's saying the assassination was bad. That's a massive step up from the average subhuman take you'd expect to see on that shithole.
Its because its cowardice instead of malice. They are still happy about what happened, but they recognize its a bad look. So they give a milquetoast disavowment of the action but still dance on his grave that he caused it to happen to himself and therefore its still a good thing.
Its a step up only in that it shows a spark of humanity left, one that is self preserving, instead of being completely lost in their evil.
Yep, sounds like 2 Faggot leftoids I know who I'm officially no longer friends with.
They're intelligent enough to know that outright dancing on his grave looks evil (they don't care, they're overjoyed internally) (also they know I'd have beaten them like dogs if they had said anything celebratory since we were at a mutual friend's house the day it happened) but they can't fully contain themselves and make small justifying statements for why it's ok it happened
Should've still make them shit themselves by asking "Are you trying to justify it?"
The vermin is still blaming the victim.
Let's keep reddit where it is. I don't want Tumblr spilling everywhere else.
The point is half of redditors (at least) should be arrested. Blue sky is upwards of 90%
Great way to find out what the scum and villainy is up to.
If they're all in jail for the rest of their lives, we solve that problem too
Not really, we can't catch them all, and prisons have ways to spread the ideas.
Well, there's always other solutions we can't talk about here because of rule 2.
Martyrs speak harder than prisons. Even if an entire society is wiped out, there will be more people willing burn the world to gain or keep power. They will seek out those methods and use them.
You can't destroy an idea.
Want to bet?
They don't deserve to have a platform with millions of groomers celebrating terrorism freely. They must be hunted down and their platform shut down.
Poison the cockroaches. Don't try to overpower. They always survive if you try to destroy directly.
I hate Reddit and Redditors.
Yes, I'm sure Charlie Kirk supported assassinating people you don't agree with, in broad daylight, in front of a crowd.
It's amazing how Redditors can throw words together to sound so superficially smart that turns into utterly ridiculous blather with only 3 seconds of thinking. It's the mental equivalent of that 15 calorie potato chip that dissolves in your mouth and feels like you didn't eat anything.
CHARLIE KIRK DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF
They can fire the admins and moderation there sure.
Charlie supported assassinating people you don't like?
you want to assume they aren't all actually retarded but just wow
Just repeal or amend US Code 230. A federal law that immunizes platforms like reddit from most lawsuits. It was part of the Communications "Decency" Act.
Then they can be dragged into court and the discovery process will unmask who is paying all these "super mods" to boost mentally ill agitators.
Quite the inception we have here.
This is the post, about the post, about the "skeet", describing a comment.