Charlie Kirk Shot

Since the beginning of civilization. People have been killing people over their beliefs since the beginning of civilization. Same as they killed people over their skin color, the group they belong to, etc. this is nothing new, I don’t know why everyone’s acting surprised. Also, him being a husband and a father does not make him a good man. Plenty of men with a wife and children do and say terrible things. IMO, he was one of them. Shit, a lot of the men on this board are barebacking prostitutes without their wife’s knowledge and bringing them God knows what home. 😂 Originally Posted by bushman2109

You must have a great family back home, mate

what hateful and violent rhetoric? and FOX is not telling anyone to avenge Kirk. you made that up. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm not sure about FoX news but they have clearly turn this into a left vs right war and this will only end up one way. A civil unrest and radicalization of people on both sides

He was a shit person anyway. Always spouting off hateful and violent rhetoric. Now FixNews is telling its viewers to avenge his death. This will all end badly. Originally Posted by Ralph Fults

Vitriol is the product of a mediocre mind. Be better.

No, not really. They never imagined it would be used to confer a private right of ownership. Only a collective right through the militia. I think you’re not giving them enough credit. An incredibly well educated a bright group, actually. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not so.

Putting the Militia and private gunowner ship into context...

In Federalist 46 Madison argues that,

"Militia, as constructed, is a voluntary gathering of armed people, created from the people, not the government. Without individual rights to arms such a militia cannot be created."

and,

"The leadership of the militia is self-appointed, and requires no governmental involvement, or approval."

In Federalist 29 Hamilton (as Publius) writes,

"In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."

There are additional and abundant examples but it is clear that the Founders contextual definition of "militia" at the time clearly meant PRIVATELY ARMED CITIZENRY organically derived from the people distinct, different, and separate from a standing army. Further, as codified within the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms by that armed private citizenry shall not be undermined or hindered (aka infringed). Even more so, the Founders foresaw the potential of a tyrannical central government attempting to subdue the citizenry for subjugation and that in order for the citizenry to fight off said attempt, the citizenry needed private gun ownership.

The British in their Bill of Rights of 1689 outlined the rights of an individual to keep firearms. The right to bear arms in English history is regarded in English law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property (Wiki). Sir William Blackistone (1723-1780) wrote extensively on the subject in "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765) and argued the English right to keep privately held firearms.

The obviousness of the argument and written codification of private gun ownership is clear.

So at the time and contextually "the militia" meant armed private individuals and not a federalized collective army. And the SCOTUS has held this in numerous high profile decisions including District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

I'm not sure about FoX news but they have clearly turn this into a left vs right war and this will only end up one way. A civil unrest and radicalization of people on both sides Originally Posted by shauk1960

does "they" include CNN, MSDNC .. er MSNOW, NBC, ABC and CBS?


this just in!!!


MSNBC fires Matthew Dowd after Charlie Kirk shooting comments, reports say


https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...k/86088891007/


who's stirring shit here??

Vitriol is the product of a mediocre mind. Be better. Originally Posted by alanbourdilliontreherne

don't get yer hopes up. the left hates Trump so much that they don't realize they are the actual cult not MAGA

Not so.

Putting the Militia and private gunowner ship into context...

In Federalist 46 Madison argues that,

"Militia, as constructed, is a voluntary gathering of armed people, created from the people, not the government. Without individual rights to arms such a militia cannot be created."

and,

"The leadership of the militia is self-appointed, and requires no governmental involvement, or approval."

In Federalist 29 Hamilton (as Publius) writes,

"In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition."

There are additional and abundant examples but it is clear that the Founders contextual definition of "militia" at the time clearly meant PRIVATELY ARMED CITIZENRY organically derived from the people distinct, different, and separate from a standing army. Further, as codified within the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms by that armed private citizenry shall not be undermined or hindered (aka infringed). Even more so, the Founders foresaw the potential of a tyrannical central government attempting to subdue the citizenry for subjugation and that in order for the citizenry to fight off said attempt, the citizenry needed private gun ownership.

The British in their Bill of Rights of 1689 outlined the rights of an individual to keep firearms. The right to bear arms in English history is regarded in English law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property (Wiki). Sir William Blackistone (1723-1780) wrote extensively on the subject in "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765) and argued the English right to keep privately held firearms.

The obviousness of the argument and written codification of private gun ownership is clear.

So at the time and contextually "the militia" meant armed private individuals and not a federalized collective army. And the SCOTUS has held this in numerous high profile decisions including District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Originally Posted by alanbourdilliontreherne

exactly right. the true intent of the founding fathers was for the citizens to have the right and obligation to defend the nation and also the right to defend themselves .. even if it's against the corrupt government.


"all threats .. foreign and domestic .."



what is unclear about this?

A nutjob with a long gun and a scope!
(Only, in America!)
We can thank the founding fathers (and, the 2nd amendment .. for this one)!
Don't hold your breath ... there's only another senseless slaughter around the corner! Originally Posted by victoryformation

Why are you blaming the 2nd adm… he was in a gun free zone.. guns aren’t allowed there..

He was a shit person anyway. Always spouting off hateful and violent rhetoric. Now FixNews is telling its viewers to avenge his death. This will all end badly. Originally Posted by Ralph Fults

I haven’t seen or heard anything from Fox calling for people to take up arms to avenge him.. how was he spouting off hateful/violent rhetoric when he/his side was on the receiving end of something bad?? Kirk never threatened anyone, he used his words to unravel the mess of the other side.