Charlie Kirk shot, another conservative assassination attempt.

This also sparks a conversation about security. Kirk often had a 5 person security detail with him. Which means he understood that there might be some attempts on his life.

That security team isn't going to typically prep for a sniper. That's head of state prep.

It sounds like the shot came from 100 to 200 yards. On a campus which I understand allows concealed carry.

Doesn't matter how many good guys with a gun you have around you if the shot comes from from a football field or two away.

by your sick logic, MLK wasnt a victim, JFK wasnt a victim, Malcom X wasnt a victim

seems to me your logic or ill logic is rooted in your own hatred of his views

i feel sorry for people like you....... Originally Posted by oldman2525

Your analysis of my statement is correct. I do believe that people who deliberately place themselves in the line of fire for whatever reason aren’t victims. I’m aware that strays from the strict definition of the word.

Victim:
One who is harmed or killed by another, especially by someone committing a criminal or unlawful act. "a victim of a mugging."

One who is harmed by or made to suffer under a circumstance or condition.
"victims of war; victims of an epidemic; victims of poverty."

I tend to think of victim by the second definition. I don’t think that Charlie Kirk or JFK or MLK or Malcolm X are truly victims of circumstance but are at least somewhat responsible for their own ends. Their actions can be laudable and their endings sad but that doesn’t make them victims in my book. (just my opinion)

Your analysis of my statement is correct. I do believe that people who deliberately place themselves in the line of fire for whatever reason aren’t victims. I’m aware that strays from the strict definition of the word.



I tend to think of victim by the second definition. I don’t think that Charlie Kirk or JFK or MLK or Malcolm X are truly victims of circumstance but are at least somewhat responsible for their own ends. Their actions can be laudable and their endings sad but that doesn’t make them victims in my book. (just my opinion) Originally Posted by txdot-guy

fair enough, but i cant agree with that logic

so tx-dot goes out one night and goes to have a drink at his local bar. he gets into a discussion with another patron and thru the conversation they disagree on a certain subject. tex-dot tells the guy hes completely wrong. the guy turns around and shoots tx-dot

now texdot voiced his opinion and it didnt jive with someone else

so tex-dot isnt a victim?

fair enough, but i cant agree with that logic

so tx-dot goes out one night and goes to have a drink at his local bar. he gets into a discussion with another patron and thru the conversation they disagree on a certain subject. tex-dot tells the guy hes completely wrong. the guy turns around and shoots tx-dot

now texdot voiced his opinion and it didnt jive with someone else

so tex-dot isnt a victim? Originally Posted by oldman2525

It depends, did I make a living doing so? By referring to Charlie Kirk as a victim you are overlooking the part his actions played in his own life.

It depends, did I make a living doing so? By referring to Charlie Kirk as a victim you are overlooking the part his actions played in his own life. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are victim shaming to justify a murder instead of condemning the one who committed the murder.

What role did the Ukrainian girl play in her own murder? Will you condemn the murderer whose actions are clear as day on video?

You people know no shame. Disgusting.

Your analysis of my statement is correct. I do believe that people who deliberately place themselves in the line of fire for whatever reason aren’t victims. I’m aware that strays from the strict definition of the word.



I tend to think of victim by the second definition. I don’t think that Charlie Kirk or JFK or MLK or Malcolm X are truly victims of circumstance but are at least somewhat responsible for their own ends. Their actions can be laudable and their endings sad but that doesn’t make them victims in my book. (just my opinion) Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Speaking your mind isn’t, nor should it be, putting yourself in the line of fire. That statement straight up condones murder of one’s political adversaries.

It actually is. Shouldn't be, but that's part of why he had the security detail he had. Perhaps we should see what triggered the killer

please show where this man preached hate and racism or antisemitism

or is this more hate spewing on your part??

ahh it funny how liberals always find excuses for hatred towards those who dont fit their mold..... Originally Posted by oldman2525

There's over a decade of examples, but this covers just a tiny snippet. Not something I'd advocate shooting him over.

https://portal.csun.edu/faculty_staf...1-656aa6dd0efd

The suspect in custody was released after an interrogation

https://www.wcvb.com/article/charlie...-utah/66041234

Speaking your mind isn’t, nor should it be, putting yourself in the line of fire. That statement straight up condones murder of one’s political adversaries. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

A truer statement would be hard to find. But it happens every day all over the world. Denying its existence is counterproductive. Knowing that your words can get you killed is something everyone should be aware of.

Consider John Lennon. He was killed because of his words and lifestyle. And he preached peace and love.

https://www.kcra.com/article/charlie...tions/66043005

Nancy Pelosi has denounced the violence, even though Kirk spread all sorts of conspiracies about the attack on her husband and advocated for his listeners the bail put the attacker.

That says a lot

The Hoffman family, has spoken out against it as well. Having lived through this kind of tragedy themselves.

I didn't like Charlie Kirk
I didn't like his Christian Nationalist viewpoints. I didn't like how he thought 2nd amendment rights over top of all other civil rights or that he thought that success in America meant, marriage, mating and mortgages. I felt he was a simplistic moralist and part of the MAGA team. His views seemingly told from a Sunday school lectern vs to an adult society .

However, I really am not glad he was murdered or left his family without a father or husband.

It's horrible that a shooter turned him into a Martyr vs another person I didn't agree with. Did his rhetoric cause this?....we won't know till more facts happen.

My bigger thought is why can't political figures try to be more unifying instead of divisive - because that's what both sides feels like. Originally Posted by eyecu2

I agree, but you only have to see the far left opinions of this assassination of a Conservative, over speech to see that division is preferable to those who have only that intent.

If one side has the foregone intent to never agree to get along, then naturally people will note that, and lobby against it.

Thats what Charlie Kirk did, he used facts to embarrass stupid people with stupid political ideology based on rhetoric, not facts.

And yes, he embarrassed them, as well they should have been.

But he was CORRECT.

He spoke truth, and was killed for it.

I dont want to live among people who accept death over politics, that's called Anarchy.

So, the close up video is circulating on social media of Charlie being shot.

Have any of you watched it?

Thoughts?

The shooter remains at large. There have been two arrests and releases.