Sunday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Charlie Kirk's death was tragic, and his family and friends deserve our heartfelt sympathy. Assassination of political figures is thoroughly unacceptable.

That having been said, the ideas he advocated were authoritarian and vile. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html

[santamonica811]

Is it available anywhere not behind a paywall?

[ThePublius]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.l08.iXTv.UT57B-8HfAv4&smid=url-share

[santamonica811]

Thanks, Pub. 🙂

[Kazinski]

You think his message is vile, but seems to resonate worldwide:

"Thousands of South Koreans marched through Seoul on September 13, 2025, honoring slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk with chants of "We are Charlie Kirk," American flags, and MAGA hats, organized by local conservative groups to blend anti-communist sentiments with Kirk's global right-wing messages. Kirk, 31, was fatally shot on September 10 during a campus event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, in what the FBI is investigating as a potential political assassination; a 22-year-old suspect was arrested after a relative's tip, with a $100,000 reward offered for further information. Similar vigils have spread worldwide, including in London and Canberra, amplifying Kirk's advocacy for anti-immigration, faith, and family values from his recent Asia tours."

https://x.com/i/trending/1966907928344134102

Video here:

https://youtu.be/Ry57WclRVhw?si=lSR41hwE9RncaJdv

[Kazinski]

Charlie Kirk's almost last words, when asked “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”

"Too many".

Axios headline:

Kirk suspect's transgender roommate "aghast," may be key to motive

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/13/kirk-suspect-transgender-roommate

[John 4]

That’s right—there’s gotta be a “tranny” involved somehow, somewhere that can be blamed.

[Riva]

Not directly, what is to blame is the lefts' increasing radicalization. "These are large numbers of people in professional and managerial jobs — mostly government employees of some sort, it seems — who genuinely believe that holding ideas they don’t like should carry the death penalty." https://instapundit.substack.com/p/when-the-preference-cascade-becomes

[bernard11]

From Reynolds:

These are large numbers of people in professional and managerial jobs — mostly government employees of some sort, it seems — who genuinely believe that holding ideas they don’t like should carry the death penalty.

This is a lie. Complete fucking made-up bullshit.

These people are everywhere. They might be teaching your kids. They might be the face looking down at you as you’re wheeled into the E.R. They might be the guy who approves your building permit, or not. It’s an Army Of Haters.

More of the same.

They’re there, they hate you, and they’re not going anywhere. So what to do about it?

What does Reynolds think needs to be done? Does he think leftists should be shot, arrested, sent to CECOT? He's obviously too much of a coward to say.

Utter asshole.

[Riva]

Based on the content of some posters here, it's not certainly not an army of the reasonable who want to have an honest exchange of ideas.

[Zarniwoop]

When do we get to the shooter's "father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate"?

[Michael P]

Are you claiming that the shooter's "father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate" is the closest connection to a motive that the shooter had?

I have to ask, because that would be a stupid claim even by your standards.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Was he romantically involved with those people too? Wow, he sure got around.

[Zarniwoop]

Do I really have to explain Spaceballs: the movie reference?

[Michael P]

You only have to explain why you thought it applied here. In the alternative, admit that it doesn't.

[Zarniwoop]

At this point, I'm going to go with "helping VC readers identify the folks that have had their sense of humor surgically removed".

[Michael P]

That probably sounded clever in your head, but it is an open admission that the original joke simply does not apply in this context. There is all the difference in the world between "(possibly romantically-involved) current roommate" and "father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate". As Dark Helmet noted, the latter chain amounts to "absolutely nothing".

[Zarniwoop]

FFS, no. Slow down and re-read. The movie quote was the use of humor to gently mock the continually-shifting "there must be trannies involved somehow" rationales that some folks on the right are desperately grasping at in the absence of, y'know, decent verifiable facts.

In other words, "When do we get to ..." was deliberately used, as opposed to operating as an assertion that Dark Helmet's line *is* the current situation.

Slow down, develop some actual info first. And stop taking yourself so seriously.

[Michael P]

You tried to mock people, and only made a mockery of yourself. It's much like when people try to "mock" the right by calling them Nazis: the unjustified analogy shows how ignorant and dim-witted the speaker is, and falls far short of reflecting on the intended target.

You thought you could play "clown nose on, clown nose off" but accidentally super-glued that clown nose on your face.

[Sarcastr0]

Gotta say, you're not shaking the 'I didn't get the Spaceballs ref' charges with this whole Nazi digression.

[Kazinski]

To be fair the trans boyfriend seems the sane one in the relationship.

There's no evidence they knew in advance, and they fully cooperated with authorities.

It doesn't erase Tyler Robinson's guilt and motivation.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know his motivation at this point.

We all know what you WANT to be true; you're basically gagging for it.

But most of us normal people will wait for evidence before believing a fact.

[David Nieporent]

At the present time, there is no evidence of the existence of any "trans boyfriend." (Or trans girlfriend.) This appears to be pure internet rumormongering. I just spent about 30 minutes googling, and while these claims are widely circulating, I did not see a single statement from anyone with firsthand knowledge that either the roommate was transgender or that s/he was dating Robinson.

[Absaroka]

The governor's interview on Meet the Press has been up on news,google.com for several hours. It's in the first couple of minutes of the vid.

The governor's information isn't first hand, of course, but it seems to qualify as more than pure internet rumor mongering.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I did not see a single statement from anyone with firsthand knowledge that either the roommate was transgender or that s/he was dating Robinson."

A lot of couples prefer that other people don't watch.

[NvEric]

How so were his ideas authoritarian and vile ?

[AmosArch]

He wanted to not go full speed ahead with letting schools trans kids without their parents knowledge. What an authoritarian.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk. I sincerely hope nobody shoots you for your authoritarian and vile ideas.

Fronk

[Commenter_XY]

What idea did he advocate that offended you in particular, NG?

[Frank Drackman]

That mutilating children’s sexual organs to treat their mental illness is a crime and those who do it should be punished.

[Mr. Bumble]

What should be done with the doctors and hospitals doing such procedures?

[Frank Drackman]

Whatever the current penalties for Assault, Sexual Mutilation are. I’m of the “Sex Organ for a Sex Organ” Philosophy but that’s just me

[Michael P]

Still no answer. Hm.

Do time limits on answering only apply when bot guilty is the one asking a question?

[Magister]

Maybe you should read the NY Times editorial that not guilty linked to; that would likely already have answered Commenter_XY's question.

[Michael P]

It would not have. Maybe you should have read Commenter_XY's question.

[Magister]

There's ample basis to see that Commenter_XY's question was answered; far more than not guilty ever gets an answer when he asks about unsupported assertions.

[Michael P]

What idea did he advocate that offended you in particular, NG?

So which idea was it?

[not guilty]

I referred XY to several ideas mentioned by Mr. Bouie as having been advocated by Mr. Kirk, and I provided numerous links to where Mr. Kirk was reported to have said the things attributed to him.

I see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, Michael P. (Not that I haven't known that all along.)

[bernard11]

I can't speak for NG, but read the linked Op-ed, XY.

Then get back to us

Note, BTW, that just a day or two ago someone posted a link of Kirk saying he had never heard of the replacement theory - that it was a fabrication of the left. But here we have a quote of him endorsing it.

Also, his Professor Watchlist was odious.

[damikesc]

I read it.

It is the usual Jemelle Bouie BS.

[bernard11]

IOW, you have nothing to say.

[damikesc]

As much as Bouie did.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Also, his Professor Watchlist was odious."

Yeah, nothing worse than reacting to speech you don't like with more speech, amirite?

[bernard11]

The list was an intimidation tactic, pure and simple.

There are no counter-arguments, just names and photos and quotes. Now, some of the quotes are silly, but the site doesn't seem to address them.

It just wants people harassed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not sure what you mean. Anyone on the list is free to make any counter-arguments they want.

Do you feel the same way about the SPLC's list, which many on the left have taken as authoritative for years?

[not guilty]

"What idea did he advocate that offended you in particular, NG?"

Jamelle Bouie does quite a good job of highlighting Kirk's advocacy of abhorrent ideas and policies:

https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/?_sp=b0032722-320d-49b7-8fa3-1af006968764.1757867020420

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-pushes-great-replacement-conspiracy-they-wont-stop-until-you-and-your

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-must-ban-trans-affirming-care-entire-country-donald-trump-needs-run

[not guilty]

https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/15/how-should-republicans-respond-to-fulton-county-indict-the-left/

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-promises-mass-deportations-and-warns-if-democrat-gets-our-way-well-then

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/turning-point-usa-founder-charlie-211415069.html

[Michael Ejercito]

What is wrong with indicting the left?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's your basis, that he said, to paraphrase, that if somebody kicks you in the nads, you absolutely have to gouge their eyes in response, or they'll just keep doing it?

That he said that if Democrats meant to force demographic change on the US by illegal immigration, Republicans should enforce the border?

I'm not impressed.

[Magister]

That's a truly heroic sanewashing of the examples in that editorial.

[Randal]

And still didn't come out as being particularly sane.

[Jack Jordan]

Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserves. There's no reason to think Kirk's killing was more tragic than Kirk thought of other deaths due to gun violence. Kirk's own words are most relevant to whether Kirk's killing was tragic or just a sort of poetic justice:

"I think it’s worth it 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."

– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

[ThePublius]

He didn't say Americans deserve this fate. Your comment is particularly vile.

[Jack Jordan]

ThePublius, did you really not see how Kirk said (speaking for America) "it's worth it" it "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our" other "rights"? Kirk literally said we "have the second amendment" so that our rights regarding arms can (and should) be exercised "to protect our" other "rights." Kirk expressly said he saw "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year." If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to inflict ""some gun deaths every single year."

[ThePublius]

Your view on this is all screwed up and based in hatred. To say that because Kirk recognized that some people will die because of the 2nd Amendment should lead you to think and say that he "got what he deserved" and that it's "poetic justice." That's just sick.

[Jack Jordan]

ThePublius, you're obviously projecting. "Your view on this is all screwed up and based in hatred." I clearly did not say Kirk "got what he deserved." You said that.

Kirk also clearly had not merely "recognized that some people will die because of the 2nd Amendment." Kirk said he saw "the second amendment" as empowering us "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year." So again, I ask that if you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to inflict ""some gun deaths every single year."

[Michael P]

Stitching together little bits of quotes like that just emphasizes that you're building a strawman.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, if you think I misrepresented what Kirk thought, then prove me wrong. I ask (again) if you think that what I wrote about Kirk is not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jack Jordan — I do not see it quite the way you seem to see it.

I think Kirk expected that existence of the 2A empowers the American right to get the political preferences it wants (which Kirk thought of as rights) through armed intimidation. Kirk promoted a climate of violence, because that climate has been working for Trump/MAGA. It has worked so far without much need to make actual violence general. So Kirk wanted to excuse more particularized violence as exceptional, and thus properly overlooked.

Here is how it works. Judges who do not rule pro-MAGA get named by Trump publicly, which encourages death threats, as Trump knows and intends. The Supreme Court majority, already right-wing by inclination, gets encouraged to also decide cases pro-Trump/MAGA. Their alternative is excoriation by Trump. and a plainly evident possibility that Trump might target SCOTUS using the same violent elements he mass-pardoned for attacking the Congress.

A SCOTUS preoccupied with fending off armed mobs will have its hands full. It will not be a SCOTUS which enjoys legitimacy sufficient to face down Executive defiance.

Neither will it escape anyone's notice that Trump/MAGA has already undermined the capacity for private civil resistance inherent in law firms, universities, media, business organizations, the professional medical community, local governments, local election administrators, and a professional civil service. Further systematic incapacitation of such civic assets continues apace.

Trump/MAGA seems in process of training the military to do its bidding domestically, despite ancient law and tradition to the contrary. That, of course, is the part of the previous Trump coup attempt which Trump stupidly neglected beforehand. He seems intent on not repeating the mistake.

All of that chaos and decline has been furthered by fear that behind it lies an appreciable armed faction of the populace, intent not on public discourse, which it has never commanded, but public armed threats, which evidently work better. Charlie Kirk's simple observation was that those armed threats back everything Trump/MAGA aspires to, but cannot be maintained without inevitable irrelevant violence on the side.

It is that irrelevant violence for which Kirk intended to encourage tolerance. His concern was that attempts to ameliorate that by policy could too much hamper the goal of a hopefully peaceful overthrow of American constitutionalism. The intent has been to make threats of violence so terrifying that few if any will forcibly resist. But to get there, capacity for real violence must remain evident, and evidently unchecked.

You see all that expressed explicitly in these comments, by deluded members of Kirk's intended audience. The delusion, of course, has been belief that any of this has anything to do with personal rights.

The Trump/MAGA intention—with which a possibly deluded Kirk associated himself—is a government proclaiming personal rights on one hand, but empowered to crush them on the other. That is what overthrow of American constitutionalism must look like. Because otherwise, an independent joint popular sovereign wielding power greater than government's would step in with correctives.

By the intended Trump/MAGA method, any sovereign capacity to vindicate personal rights against government infringement goes away. That leaves government—the rights infringer itself—as a false-front to soothe anxieties among ordinary people too inattentive to notice what happened.

Only in practice will ordinary people discover that were they actually still jointly sovereign, the power to enforce their rights would have remained in their own hands, instead of in the hands of an infringing government. It is only upon the dawning of that realization that fully active government violence will come into play against ordinary Americans. For the present, government violence will remain reserved to target sub-groups, as examples to inspire fear in the alert, and complaisance among the others.

[Randal]

Yes, this is unfortunately the correct analysis.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, your theory necessarily depends on people actually having used guns to kill people. There's no getting around that foundation. People fear gun violence because many people have used guns to kill people. To use Kirk's words, "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" only because people actually do cause "gun deaths every single year."

Moreover, nothing anyone has written shows me anything about what Kirk thought about people using guns to kill people (other than that "it’s worth it," "That is a prudent deal. It is rational."). Your writing did nothing to cause me doubt that Kirk was advocating people using guns to kill people "to protect our other God-given rights." I've heard many people say something very similar (expressing their own sentiments). Having heard Kirk speak a little, I don't have any reason to doubt that's exactly what he meant.

[not guilty]

"To say that because Kirk recognized that some people will die because of the 2nd Amendment should lead you to think and say that he 'got what he deserved' and that it's "poetic justice." That's just sick."

One does not need to buy into ThePublius's straw man to wonder: does Moloch have a keen sense of irony regarding gun worship? https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

[Michael Ejercito]

What gun worship?

[not guilty]

Read the article by Garry Wills that I linked to, which was written in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.

[Kazinski]

And Kirk was right.

It is a long time national consensus.

But it doesn't protect our rights by some people misusing their RKBA, that is an unfortunate side effect, and when they do, then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But responsible gun owners refuse to be punished, or have our rights infringed for other's crimes.

[Jack Jordan]

Kazinski, please be clear. About what do you think "Kirk was right. It's a long time national consensus." Kirk said he saw "the second amendment" as empowering us "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year." Is that what you had in mind? If so, that view is very extreme. It is very far from reflecting national consensus. I've never seen even one statement by anyone actually in government say anything like that.

[Kazinski]

When you quote someone you put the quote marks at the front, and his words in between, and the quote marks at the end.

Like this:
"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".

And that is our long time national consensus.

Which of course is not what you are saying, but like Charlie you are entitled to your own opinion, just not to mistating his.

[Jack Jordan]

Kazinski, I see your point, but even the view you expressed does not reflect "a long time national consensus." Deep disagreement has long existed about the extent to which securing the power to take life (and how to do so) actually does support our Constitution or is supported by our Constitution. The right to choose to take life has long divided public opinion in multiple respects.

I wasn't expressing my own opinion so much as Kirk's own opinion. Grasping Kirk's meaning doesn't require reiterating every word he used. He wasn't writing a statute.

Kirk clearly meant that he saw people USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our other [ ] rights." It's the actual killing "every single year" (and the prospect of being killed) with a firearm that Kirk saw as protecting "our other [ ] rights." Is that not what happened to Kirk? Now, his is one of the "gun deaths every single year" that Kirk advocated "to protect our other [ ] rights." Kirk got what he said America deserves.

How do you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year"?

[Jerry B.]

It is rational" to accept "some Automobile deaths every single year so that we can have the Ability To Be Mobile."

You ready to give up your car?

[Jack Jordan]

Jerry, as I said above:

Kirk also clearly had not merely "recognized that some people will die because of the 2nd Amendment." Kirk said he saw "the second amendment" as empowering us "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

Kirk didn't merely advocate accepting some death every year. Kirk expressly advocated USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our" other "rights."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

Your analogy relied on obviously false equivalence. A true equivalence would be arguing that it's our right to drive cars BECAUSE cars can be (and sometimes are) used to inflict "deaths every single year." That's not a reason I've ever seen asserted for our right to drive.

[Jerry B.]

Doesn't mean you have to kill someone for the 2nd Amendment to be valid. Just the fact that you do have the means to defend liberty is a check on those who would threaten it. Sort of like the presence of police is a check on those planning to commit crimes, even if they do not arrest them.

[Jack Jordan]

Jerry, very clearly Kirk did not speak of the mere "presence" of guns as serving as any kind of "check." It's not the mere "presence" of guns that serves as any check, it's the actual use of guns (more particularly, it's actual death (and the prospect of death) cause by guns that is the deterrent. Kirk necessarily expressly advocated USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our other [ ] rights."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our other [ ] rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year."

[David Nieporent]

Repeating your failure to understand the English dozens of times won't make it correct. He very clearly did speak of the mere presence of guns serving as a check. He did not say that the actual use of guns was the deterrent, let alone "expressly advocate" that.

[Jack Jordan]

David, show us the words Kirk actually used. Show us the specific words, e.g., "presence" of guns serving as a "check" or whatever specific words you think Kirk equated to mere "presence" as a "check."

How do you think "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"? What words did Kirk use to make you think that he thought that "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"?

If you think the mere presence of guns serves as a check, please help me understand why. Nearly (if not actually) the only thing about guns that prevents or deters conduct is the history of actual use and the prospect of actual use of guns and ammunition together to kill people.

[David Nieporent]

If you think the mere presence of guns serves as a check, please help me understand why. Nearly (if not actually) the only thing about guns that prevents or deters conduct is the history of actual use

No. For example, China and the Soviet Union did not deter us from nuking them by their "actual use" of nuclear weapons; they deterred us by having nuclear weapons.

One can of course disagree that citizens owning firearms deters the government from becoming tyrannical, but one should not misrepresent the argument. Of course he's not saying that a guy holding up a liquor store and shooting the clerk, or a wife shooting her husband, somehow protects our rights; that's a nonsensical argument. He's saying that widespread gun ownership protects our rights by keeping the government from getting too far out of line, but that the price of that widespread gun ownership is that there will be the misuse of guns by some people.

[Michael Ejercito]

Just like other civil rights?

[Jack Jordan]

David, I'm not able to reply to your comment below your comment, so I'll reply here.

First, don't change the subject to something irrelevant. We're not talking about nations using nukes. We're talking about what Kirk said and meant and what the Second Amendment means.

Second, only people who willfully ignore or egregiously fail to understand both history and the Second Amendment think "that citizens [merely] owning firearms deters the government from becoming tyrannical" or mere "gun ownership protects our rights by keeping the government from getting too far out of line." Saying something like that proves you either have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or you don't care to tell the truth about what you know to be true.

It's virtually impossible that someone merely owning a firearm (merely keeping a firearm) or even merely bearing a firearm would deter anyone from doing anything, much less public officials armed with very powerful weapons. Even if I were a lone burglar and I broke into your house and you brandished a firearm at me that I was sure was unloaded, I'd laugh in your face. Then, I'd take it away from you, laugh at you again, call you a really insulting epithet, and maybe even slap your face to try to knock some sense into you.

The only way guns (or the Second Amendment) prevent or deter anything is by being combined with a whole lot that clearly is not even in the Second Amendment: the right to keep, bear and use ammunition and the right to choose to kill. Without all that--especially without people actually using guns to kill--your beloved gun is not much more than an overpriced paperweight or a really heavy, bulky accessory.

[David Nieporent]

First, don't change the subject to something irrelevant. We're not talking about nations using nukes. We're talking about what Kirk said and meant and what the Second Amendment means.

I did not change the subject at all, let alone to something irrelevant. We were talking about how the presence of weapons can deter others from acting aggressively. I was simply using a commonly known instance of such a deterrent effect.

It's virtually impossible that someone merely owning a firearm (merely keeping a firearm) or even merely bearing a firearm would deter anyone from doing anything, much less public officials armed with very powerful weapons. Even if I were a lone burglar and I broke into your house and you brandished a firearm at me that I was sure was unloaded, I'd laugh in your face.

Pardon my french, but why the fuck are you bringing up unloaded weapons? Nobody else is talking about those. (Moreover, as a burglar you would not in fact ever be sure that the gun was unloaded, so your hypo would be inapplicable even if it weren't nonsensical.)

In fact, people keeping and bearing weapons routinely deter others from acting aggressively towards them; it is not only not "virtually impossible" but incredibly likely.

[Jack Jordan]

David, I'm not able to reply to your comment below your comment, so I'll reply here.

It makes no sense at all to think that civilians with guns are necessarily analogous to nations with nukes. Only nations that have PROVED their willingness to kill lots of people actually do have nukes. A history of killing (evidence of willingness to kill) is as relevant as any ability to kill. If you don't think that's true, I think it's only because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Have you ever considered killing another person with a gun? It's not as easy as watching people do it on TV. For good reason, soldiers and law enforcement personnel are trained by practicing shooting at targets that look like people.

As for why I'm "bringing up unloaded weapons," it's be cause you and people like you continue to knowingly misrepresent that merely keeping or bearing firearms prevents or deters other people (including our national government). That's an absurd pretense. It's utterly dishonest.

As I already explained:

Saying something like that proves you either have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or you don't care to tell the truth about what you know to be true.

It's virtually impossible that someone merely owning a firearm (merely keeping a firearm) or even merely bearing a firearm would deter anyone from doing anything, much less public officials armed with very powerful weapons.

The only way guns (or the Second Amendment) prevent or deter anything is by being combined with a whole lot that clearly is not even in the Second Amendment: the right to keep, bear and use ammunition and the right to choose to kill. Without all that--especially without people actually using guns to kill--your beloved gun is not much more than an overpriced paperweight or a really heavy, bulky accessory.

[David Nieporent]

The only way guns (or the Second Amendment) prevent or deter anything is by being combined with a whole lot that clearly is not even in the Second Amendment: the right to keep, bear and use ammunition and the right to choose to kill. Without all that--especially without people actually using guns to kill--your beloved gun is not much more than an overpriced paperweight or a really heavy, bulky accessory.

There is literally not a single person on the planet who reads the 2A in good faith to think that it means the right to keep weapons without the ammunition necessary for the weapons to function.

[Sylvie1]

That is a gross misreading. Kirk did not say that we have to protect our other rights with our Second Amendment rights BY having people inflict gun deaths. He said that was an "unfortunate" trade-off, but overall a prudent one. He never said "America" "deserves gun deaths." You either need remedial instruction in reading comprehension or a dose of honesty and good faith.

[Jack Jordan]

Sylvie, again:

Kirk didn't merely advocate accepting some death every year. Kirk expressly advocated USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our" other "rights."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year."

[mulched]

Again with stitch-quotes. Provide a full quote or knock it off.

[Jack Jordan]

mulched, prove me wrong (if you can). I'm not focusing myopically on Kirk's mere words. I'm focusing on his meaning. Why should anyone care about excess words that Kirk used to distract from his true meaning?

[mulched]

That's a good one. You're ignoring the words so you can make up the meaning.

[Jack Jordan]

mulched, if you insist on obsessing over the exact words, then show me the exact words in the Second Amendment that result in "gun deaths every single year." You can't do it, because the words simply were not expressed. Please explain how anyone dies from someone merely keeping a firearm or even merely bearing a firearm? It's virtually impossible. But Kirk clearly understood that "the Second Amendment" necessary actually means "gun deaths every single year."

[Jack Jordan]

Sylvie, why do you think Kirk didn't mean that America actually deserves gun deaths? Speaking for America, Kirk said "it's worth it," it even "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept some people causing "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other [ ] rights." Speaking for America, Kirk emphasized that the words of "the second amendment" necessarily will be translated into particular action, i.e., "some gun deaths every single year."

If you think Kirk's insertion of the word "unfortunate" changed his meaning, please help me see why you think that.

[Kazinski]

He's not misreading it he is making it up.

[Jack Jordan]

Kazinski, to again use the words of Charlie Kirk, how do you think "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"? What words did Kirk use to make you think that he thought that "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"?

[damikesc]

He was pointing out that cars kill dramatically more people than guns yet NOBODY calls for banning cars.

Clearly, people weigh what the loss would be versus its benefits. Gun deaths are 2/3 suicide and the vast majority of the rest are gang violence in blue cities.

Why should I forfeit my rights?

[Jack Jordan]

damikesc, how could you think the issue in this conversation could be whether anybody "calls for banning" anything or whether anyone should "forfeit" any "rights"? That's not at all what this discussion is about.

Kirk specifically said "gun deaths every single year" is worth enduring "so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights." Kirk specifically emphasized "the second amendment" serving "to protect our other God-given rights." How could that mean anything other than actually using guns for the purpose of killing people?

[Joe_dallas]

According to Jack and most every other leftists - exposing the hate the left has for America is evil and vile.

[Jack Jordan]

Joe, what exactly makes you think I'm a "leftist"? I learned my principles as a soldier who was completely non-partisan. I believe in continuing to do what I promised to do (and what every employee of the judicial branch and the federal executive branch below the president promised to do in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331): "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution (not any person, party or ideology that violates or attacks or undermines our Constitution).

[Mr. Bumble]

Then you support "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, as I already said, I learned my principles as a soldier. For many years, I kept and bore arms to support and defend our Constitution. As I already said, I believe in continuing to do what I promised to do (and what every employee of the judicial branch and the federal executive branch below the president promised to do in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3331): "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution.

Obviously, the language you quoted is in our Constitution, and SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller presented very compelling analysis and history proving that the Second Amendment isn't merely about firearms. It is about the much more profound, much more far reaching right of self-defense and self-preservation. That is a sword that cuts more than one way. Sometimes, the principle of self-defense and self-preservation requires regulating the keeping and bearing of arms. For an illustration, try watching the movie "Wyatt Earp" starring Kevin Costner.

Moreover, the principle of self-defense and self-preservation applies to much more than merely keeping, bearing or using firearms or other instruments of deadly force against another person. It applies, for example, with equal force in the context of women (or couples) seeking to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, whatever. It was a simple question. Thank you for your service. Was it in the Symbionese Liberation Army?

[Jack Jordan]

Wow, Bumble! If you thought something I said was wrong, then prove me wrong. Why do you feel it's appropriate for you to attack the actual service of people whose views you merely don't like? Have you ever served our nation by supporting and defending our Constitution with anything substantial?

[Mr. Bumble]

You seem to be new to the comments but man, you've already grown tiresome.
The question was simple yet you choose a rambling reply ending with a comment about abortion.
My comment was not an attack but mocking you for your comments about "your service" as being relevant to the question.
Virtually every elected and appointed individual takes some form of that oath. Are those the only people who believe in and support the Constitution?
Finally (and not that it matters) yes, I served. Probably before you were born along with millions of others.

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, how is my actual conduct (actually keeping and actually bearing arms) not "relevant to [your] question" of whether I "support" the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"? It seems you think information or evidence is not relevant if you think it doesn't serve your purposes or support your view.

Your final question makes no sense. Why would you even think that "the only people who believe in and support the Constitution" are those who took "some form of" the "oath" I quoted? Why would you think I implied such an absurd thought? I literally said that I'm not currently subject to any such oath but I continue to try to fulfill it.

How is mocking a person's service not attacking such service?

You say you actually served, so I'll ask how. What did you actually do that you thought actually fulfilled your oath of office?

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, your purported service certainly does matter now. You mocked my service ("Thank you for your service. Was it in the Symbionese Liberation Army?"). So I asked, "Have you ever served our nation by supporting and defending our Constitution with anything substantial?" You didn't answer my actual question. You said you merely somehow "served."

I didn't ask if you merely wore some uniform after you swore to support and defend our Constitution and bear true and allegiance to our Constitution. I asked, "Have you ever served our nation by supporting and defending our Constitution with anything substantial?" If your own service actually was in any substantial (if it actually meant anything to you), I think you would not cavalierly mock the service of others.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I said elsewhere, you are tiresome.
Sort of like Il Douche on steroids.

[Joe_dallas]

Jack Jordan 40 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Joe, what exactly makes you think I'm a "leftist"? "

Why would anyone think you are a leftists? Perhaps it is your commentary and the sources you linked to support your commentary.

[Jack Jordan]

Joe, what commentary by me (if any) are you thinking about?

[Joe_dallas]

Self awareness is appropriate
Read your own commentary.

[Jack Jordan]

I agree, Joe. So be self-aware. Show me what you were thinking (if anything) when you said that commentary by me somehow made you think I'm a leftist. I'm especially curious what you were thinking (if you were thinking at all) when you contended that something in my commentary made you think that I think that "exposing the hate the left has for America is evil and vile."

[M L]

Anyone reading these comments has to be semi-literate. That's already above the profoundly stupid threshold required to buy that you're not a leftist.

[Jack Jordan]

ML, don't bother to "buy" anything. Try to prove something.

[Kazinski]

For me it's the wordy repetition.

[M L]

Do you think it's worth some auto accident deaths every single year so that we can have cars?

[wvattorney13]

More importantly, if you do believe that having some traffic deaths is an acceptable tradeoff for legal cars, does it mean that it is "poetic justice" if you are killed in an auto accident next week? Did you "have it coming" ?

[Jack Jordan]

wvattorney, show me the words that I used that you think amounted to saying Kirk had "it coming." Kirk, himself, said "I think it’s worth it to have [ ] 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."

[Jack Jordan]

ML, your purported analogy isn't even close to Kirk's words or their meaning.

Again, to use Kirk's own words, how do you think "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"? What words did Kirk use to make you think that he thought that "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"?

[David Nieporent]

At this point you're just sealioning. Your dumb question has been answered repeatedly, and then you just repeat it again.

[Michael Ejercito]

Jack Jordan seems to be new here.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, see my post (responding to David) immediately below this one. Please try to respond with something insightful. I understand that may not be customary, but please give it a try.

[Jack Jordan]

David, show me. Show me the actual words with which anyone answered my question.

What words did Kirk use to make you think that he thought that "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"?

Or speak for yourself. How do you think "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"?

Think for even a mere minute about what we all understand actually prevents or deters criminal conduct. It isn't merely keeping or bearing parchment barriers or paper barriers. It isn't even merely having prisons. It's actually putting people in prisons or actually imposing fines. The same principle applies to guns. It isn't merely keeping or bearing guns that prevents or deters anything. ONLY the willingness and ability of MANY people to use guns (and ammunition) to actually kill people serve to prevent or deter anyone from doing anything. Everyone else is merely free-riding on the willingness and ability of other people to use guns (and ammunition) to actually kill people. It's absurd to pretend otherwise. It's utterly dishonest at this point.

[Joe_dallas]

Explaining why DEI creates racial division is vile?

Explaining why gender affirming care is evil is vile?

Explaining why subsets of the islamic culture is a threat to individual freedom is vile

Exposing the lefts vision of america of anti - free speech anti freedom is vile

Bottom line - you are living in an echo chamber and you dont see the evil of the left

[Riva]

What does NG use for today’s crap apparently defaming Charlie Kirk as promoting “authoritarian and vile” ideas (according to NG)? A NY Times opinion piece. Fitting because the NY Times just published another correction of the lies it recently made defaming Charlie Kirk as an antisemite:

The New York Times told millions of readers that Charlie Kirk was anti-semitic.

And then, quietly, they offered this correction that only a handful of readers see - that the opposite was true.
([NY Times]Text stating a correction was made on Sept. 11, 2025)

“An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.”
https://x.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1966404613566812664

And in a sense, the continued lying about Charlie Kirk is just more leftist projection. It’s at the core of everything these creeps do. To argue convincingly just makes the left more aggressive and violent. And this is playing out today as it has throughout the left’s disgraceful history.

[bernard11]

For those who are interested in some facts, here is the video of Kirk discussing the tweet (amplified by Musk) and his his "critique" of it.

The retraction says:

'An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.'

The comment originated from a November 15, 2023, tweet that Kirk repeated on his podcast a day later. It was:

'Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,'

This is the tweet the NYT mistakenly attributed to Kirk. Kirk did, very plainly, say "the first part is absolutely true." (Watch the video)

Then, Kirk goes on to say,

"Now, I don't like generalizations. Not every Jewish person believes that.

But it is true that the Anti-Defamation League was part and parcel with Black Lives Matter. It is true that some of the largest financiers of anti-white left-wing causes have been Jewish Americans. They went all-in on woke. And it wasn't just ADL, it was some of the top Jewish organizations in the country that have done that.

Except for admitting the misattribution, none of that sounds like much of a retraction to me.

Suppose I quoted someone saying "Republicans are fascists," and then said, "Well, that's true but over generalized. Not all Republicans are fascists, but here's some (dubiously) fascist things many Republicans, including leaders, have done," would anyone think I had critiqued the quote?

[Kazinski]

The ADL itself has realized it went too far left and did itself and Jewish Americans a disservice.

"But all that felt long ago now. For the past several years, and especially since the October 7 attack, Greenblatt and the ADL had insisted that surging antisemitic activity — thousands of violent incidents per year in the U.S. — was being driven largely by the political left. Greenblatt had emerged as a spokesperson for a large swath of American Jews alienated from their traditional liberal allies."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/inside-adl-anti-defamation-league-greenblatt-zionism-trump-gaza.html

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for showing your fangs. That you lack the inclination to hide them is consistent with that chilled heart of yours that still yearns to look caring.

[Armchair]

"It was wrong, but...."

Right after someone is assassinated, this basically is a subtle dig that the assassination had valid reasons and is at least partially justified.

[Sylvie1]

Right. Murderers are our national heros, from Mangione to now Robinson. Slaughter innocents, and you're either lauded like Mangione or Robinson, or deserving of the compassion which is never shown for the victims, like the life-long criminal loon who crowed "I got that white girl!" as Iryna Zaruska bled to death behind him, or the trans loon who murdered praying children.

If you're police, don't dare threaten criminals with cold coffee.

And then, there are the innocents who use force in the defense of self or others. Kyle Rittenhouse, Daniel Penny. These are vile, and must be persecuted/prosecuted to our fullest vitriolic abilities.

Of course,

[Sarcastr0]

Race-baiting that white girl's murder still; lauding those who kill liberals, and then lamenting the left is the one rooting for murder.

You're a self-refuting piece of work.

[Brett Bellmore]

As far as you're concerned, anything short of pretending a killer was white when he was black is "race-baiting".

[damikesc]

Rittenhouse killed undeniably loathsome criminals attempting to murder him. I'm supposed to be upset...why?

And Penny did --- what people wanted to have done in Charlotte. Protected many from the actions of a lunatic. And you oppose that.

I love pointing out that lefty judges release a multiple time convicted felon to murder folks is a bad thing.

[not guilty]

Armchair, what part of "Assassination of political figures is thoroughly unacceptable" do you fail to comprehend?

For example, I regarded Ronald Reagan and George Wallace as being despicable characters, but neither deserved to be shot.

[mulched]

NG still can't just say he opposes assassinations. He has to get in another virtue signal.

[Sarcastr0]

He literally just said it.

What does unacceptable mean to you?

[Armchair]

It means far less when it's hedged afterwards with caveats and such.

Watch how this works with an example that will resonate with you.

"Genocide is thoroughly unacceptable. That being said, well, the Holocaust, you know, the Jews...they had some pretty vile beliefs"

See how that works?

[Bwaaah]

But you did say something that sounded respectful.

But your contempt is evident.

Respectfully contemptuous. Is that a thing?

[Armchair]

"Armchair, what part of "Assassination of political figures is thoroughly unacceptable" do you fail to comprehend"

The part where you hedge it with the "...but...." afterwards. (Technically, you used "That having been said" instead, but it's the same practical meaning.)

If you want to address Mr Kirk's political beliefs, do so in a separate post. By implicitly linking his political beliefs (which are unacceptable in your opinion), to his assassination, you hedge, implying that the assassination had some "positive" benefit.

You know what you're doing. We know what you're doing. And I'm calling you out on it.

[CountmontyC]

Your first paragraph was great but then you had to spoil it with a second paragraph that was truly vile.

[Sarcastr0]

Linking to an article about what Kirk actually said is vile?

I said it Friday - the demands the right is making are not for empathy, they are for endorsement.

Deluded of you to think that is a legitimate demand. You can get as mad as you want we're repeating quotes from the guy - it only shows how little you care about...well, anything except owning the libs.

[CountmontyC]

When you denounce something and then immediately follow it with a "but" you are not denouncing anything.

[Sarcastr0]

I see; so your contention now is that you're mad at the use of a particular conjunction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gotta love Sarcastro humiliating himself by pretending to be unfamiliar with constructions like "I'm against political assassinations, but..."

[Life of Brian]

Just indulging for now in the polite fiction that the NYT managed for the first time in recorded history to write a factually accurate and fair assessment of a prominent conservative voice, I'd very much appreciate your clarification on why, barely 4 days after his cold-blooded assassination, litigating whether and under what circumstances Charlie Kirk may have said something at some point in his abruptly shortened career that offended someone on the left is even in the general neighborhood of the top 10 most important things to sort out.

What exact part of the aftermath of this horrible tragedy do you feel that particular exercise could possibly positively affect, and why?

[Kazinski]

Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom march in London Saturday was very successful:

"The rally drew an estimated crowd of between 110,000 and 150,000 people, far surpassing expectations, police said. "

""There's something beautiful about being British and what I see happening here is a destruction of Britain, initially a slow erosion, but rapidly increasing erosion of Britain with massive uncontrolled migration," he said.

Robinson told the crowd in a hoarse voice that migrants now had more rights in court than the "British public, the people that built this nation."

The marches come at a time when the U.K. has been divided by debate over migrants crossing the English Channel in overcrowded inflatable boats to arrive on shore without authorization.

Numerous anti-migrant protests were held this summer outside hotels housing asylum-seekers following the arrest of an Ethiopian man who was later convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in a London suburb. Some of those protests became violent and led to arrests."

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/g-s1-88663/london-protest-by-far-right-activist

Since 2015 reported rapes of more than quadrupled in England and Wales. Its not hard to see why people might be upset.

[Frank Drackman]

Was he able to wave an English flag?

[LexAquilia]

Not legally.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't know about that. They seemed to be all over the place during the recent demonstrations.
Maybe Herr Starmtrooper has been paying attention to Nepal.

[AmosArch]

Can we get an apology from the leftists on here who were spewing reprehensible misinformation on how the Charlie Kirk assassin was hard right Christian conservative MAGA? Botaglove? Snorkle? Mr. Somin (implicitly) yeah you heard me I'm talking to you. Let's hear it...or are you going to chicken out?

[NvEric]

No and yes. Those people do not think, only react. They are reactionaries.

Somin, especially, harbors views not founded in reasoned words of experience or rational honored wisdom. But, everyone has their free speech ; contrary views are welcomed and can and are countered with truth, sometimes. Most times those views take too much to point out the logical mistakes, and, therefore, silence is the only response.

[Kazinski]

They are going to need a few more weeks to come to terms with it.

Not that they didn't know in all along but that is their coping mechanism.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and then it will be a master class in denial, deflection, obfuscation and just plain outright lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're never going to come to terms with it. A decade from now it will STILL be a common belief on the left that Kirk was assassinated by a right winger for being too compromising.

[Mr. Bumble]

As shown by their continued insistence that Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 and the Jan. 6 was an insurrection.

[Brett Bellmore]

They also still think Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, and that George Bush was a draft dodger.

You can never kill these lies once they get spread, because the left is too emotionally invested in thinking badly of their political foes. And the more conscious of the people on the left understand and exploit that, practicing the big lie technique as a deliberate tactic.

[Sylvie1]

You'll find people who still think Richard III was responsible for the murders of his nephews, though that has actually been debunked roughly every century for half a millennium.

[Frank Drackman]

and Floyd George didn't die due to his own drug addiction.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t you mean Drug Addiction?

And, he didn’t.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t you mean “He”?
(You know, the Divine “He” as youse guys place Floyd right up there with Hey-Zeus and his Daddy)
Ha! Just roasted you on your own Retard,

Frank “Leave using Fentanyl-a-Nol to the Professionals”

[Malika la Maize]

He seems to place a great deal of time in your mind so it might be correct for you to capitalize his name, but I just follow regular rules of English which you either cannot, or, more pathetically, do not.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey-Zeus? I like some of His early work, He could stand to be more punctual though.
But Floyd George? Even if a cop did kill him(he didn’t) he was a 3 time loser woman beating drug addict that the worlds better off without.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Was he the kind of loser that didn’t know basic English writing rules, or worse, didn’t follow them as part of a pathetic weirdo routine on the internet?

[ThePublius]

Yes, he did.

[Malika la Maize]

Wrong, as usual.

According to the official autopsy from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office, George Floyd's cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression". The manner of death was ruled a homicide.
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf

[Joe_dallas]

The forensic evidence in the autopsy report did not support that conclusion

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know that, Joe_Dallas? When and where were you trained in forensic pathology?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - suffice it to say based on comments from most every leftist here, that I have vastly better knowledge of basic scientific facts that you. The forensic evidence did not support the state theory of death nor did the forensic evidence support the autopsy's conclusion.

[not guilty]

That is completely unresponsive to my questions.

How do you claim to know that the forensic evidence in the autopsy report did not support the findings that Malika la Maize referenced? Show your work.

And when and where were you trained in forensic pathology?

[Joe_dallas]

Only need to know basic biology to understand the forensic report.

Time to quit playing the Not an Expert game. Its only an admission that you dont have knowledge of basic science.

No petecchiae
Excess foam/fluid in the lungs consistent with drug overdose from the autopsy report. (the forensic portion of the autopsy report),
Excess fluid in the lungs, consistent with inability of lungs to exchange oxygen through the alveoli.
Fluid / foam in the mouth consistent with drug overdose as exhibited prior to any restraint.
statements of difficulty breathing prior to restraint,
zero bruises or trauma in locations consistent with aphyxiation caused by any restraint.

NG - care to explain why you are not familiar with any biological facts as stated above. Especially since is basic high school level biology.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
That is completely unresponsive to my questions.

How do you claim to know that the forensic evidence in the autopsy report did not support the findings that Malika la Maize referenced? Show your work.

FYI - Malika did not link to the autopsy report.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty sure Hey-Zeus didn’t speak English (although He certainly could if He wanted, He’s Hey-Zeus!
Don’t think he’d be concerned about dangling participles and gerunds and indefinite pronouns, he was more into your immortal Soul and Eternal Life.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Autopsy reports are sometimes politicized. I saw one once where a woman who was stabbed 27 times we determined to be a suicide. And more recently, Sandra Birchmore in Massachusetts: the autopsy report said suicide by asphyxiation, but subsequently, former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell was federally indicted for her murder.

Some big guy bouncing off the walls, high as a kite on various drugs, robbing stores, gets restrained and subsequently dies, long after the restraint - what killed him? Do you think he may have had comorbidities? Maybe? Do you know, how long after he was released from restraint did he die?

So I don't give a lot of weight to autopsy reports. Or, at least, I'm skeptical of them.

[Joe_dallas]

malika - you linked to the press report
not to the actual autopsy
not to the drug report
not to anything that had the forensic evidence.

do you know the difference?

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, the issue isn't merely whether Jan. 6 amounted to an insurrection. Trump violated his oath by inciting his supporters to interfere on Jan. 6 with the count of ballots at the Capitol by the VP (the President of the Senate) and the House Speaker on Jan. 6. Trump did so by calling on his supporters to "march on the Capitol" and "fight like hell" to "Stop the Steal!"
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

Evidence of what Trump did and intended to do included what Trump failed to do or say. Trump ignored repeated requests (by his own supporters) that he instruct his more violent supporters to stop what they were doing on Jan. 6. Federal law required Trump to say something, but Trump just would not do it.

Now, Trump gleefully sends U.S. Armed Forces or National Guard into American cities, but on January 6 he would not do so even though that was his duty under federal law and the U.S. Constitution. See 10 U.S.C. § 253:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it . . .
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

See also 10 U.S.C. § 254:

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

[Michael P]

"Trump ignored repeated requests"? He did not. He did tell people to go home. Below, you assert that government employees have almost boundless First Amendment protections -- but freedom from compelled speech is the first and broadest protection that anyone gets.

And you go even further when you imply that the President must agree with you about when it becomes "necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter".

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, apparently you didn't pay attention to what actually happened on Jan. 6.

You clearly did not pay attention to what I wrote. I clearly did not "imply that the President must agree with [me] about when it becomes 'necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter.' " I pretty clearly said we should look at the evidence of Trump's own thoughts. We should look at Trump's own actions to see when Trump thinks it is "necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter."

I also clearly did not say or imply "that government employees have almost boundless First Amendment protections." What made you think that from what I actually said?

[Michael P]

So, you're going to ignore what you wrote below as well as the fact that Trump did both what you claim his supporters requested and what you claim is a legal prerequisite for deploying the military to suppress a supposed insurrection. (Note that it's quite clear, legally, that there was no insurrection, much less one "in a State".)

I'm not surprised.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, I have no idea what you think you said. Please be more clear (with quotations).

Did you actually read the statute that I quoted? Did it limit its reach to only an "insurrection"? Clearly, it did not. Clearly it addressed any "domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." Did you think none of that occurred on January 6 at the Capitol for the purpose of preventing the counting of ballots by the Vice President (as the President of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House (all of which was expressly required by the supreme law of the land)? If so, please help me see why you would think that.

[damikesc]

He learned that relying on Democrats to actually use things offered to maintain peace is a fool's errand and it is a mistake he will not make again.

[Jack Jordan]

damikesc, did you read the statute (10 U.S.C. 253) quoted above. It authorized and required Trump to act. Trump wasn't, in fact, "relying on Democrats to actually use things" on Jan. 6. That's just another falsehood for people who slurp up whatever Trump spits out.

[Malika la Maize]

Donald Trump sat for hours watching the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold on live TV, ignoring pleas by his children and other close advisers to urge his supporters to stop the violence, witnesses told a congressional hearing on Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/

[Michael Ejercito]

Why should he?

[bernard11]

"Trump ignored repeated requests"?

Yes.

He did not.

He did.

He did tell people to go home.

After spending several enjoyable hours watching the insurrection on TV. And then he told the participants he loved them.

[Malika la Maize]

Brett mocking conspiracy theories is like Elton John mocking people for dressing too loudly.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, remember Kaz argued the Minnesota state representatives shooter did it because one of the reps voted against funding for illegal aliens.

[John 4]

They have been claiming the Republican who shot the lawmakers in Minnesota was a “Marxist”. These people are embarrassingly stupid.

[Joe_dallas]

John 4 51 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
They have been claiming the Republican who shot the lawmakers in Minnesota was a “Marxist”. These people are embarrassingly stupid.

John - A little self awareness is in order.
The minnesota shooter's political views spanned a very wide range from the far right to the far left marxist views. One thing is clear is that he is a nut case. The flyers and other more recent comments indicate that in recent months his political views had shifted to the far left.

[Malika la Maize]

Inside Boelter's vehicle was a list of nearly 70 people, including abortion rights advocates, Democratic politicians, and abortion providers.

A longtime Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, resident who knew Boelter as a fourth-grade student in his childhood town since 1976, told reporters he was stunned to learn that Boelter is a suspect in the attacks. He described Boelter as "a conservative who voted for President Donald Trump and was strongly against abortion rights"

Also in his car was a stack of flyers for the "No Kings" anti-Trump protests to be held on the day of the shooting.[61][62] Police said they believed Boelter may have intended to target the protests, sparking cancellations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators

[Bob from Ohio]

How does this "longtime Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, resident" know this?

[Malika la Maize]

It says he knew him since 1976.

[John 4]

The irony is too thick.

[jb]

Love the MAGA circle jerk here, especially congratulating yourselves for January 6th just being some sort of tourist outing.

Seems like we still don't know anything about his politics, and I've seen way more rush to try to paint the guy as trans or blame "leftists" without having evidence. I haven't even seen ThePublius apologize for naming a specific incorrect person in the Friday open thread. But yeah, you guys go on convincing yourself that it's the people on the other team jumping to incorrect conclusions.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - considerable information is now available about Tyler robinson's politics.

Are you trying to Pulling one of those "we may never know the shooters reasons or politics " stunts?

most all of those "incorrect conclusions" are in fact accurate.

[Michael P]

jb is using a narrow definition of "we" in saying "we still don't know anything about his politics". He means those people who won't admit the obvious.

[jb]

As usual, joe_dallas tells us many things are known without telling us what they are, much less providing a citation.

FWIW, I did some cursory reading to try to figure out what we've learned in the past two days, and the only thing of note is that he has a trans roommate who he may be in a relationship with. Which, of course, tells us basically nothing about his politics.

[Joe_dallas]

jb - pulling the same stunt

There is considerable information publicly available

yet you pick up only one fact and pretend it is the entire universe of what is known while ignoring all the other information which is now publicly available.
Then you turn around and condemn me for based on you ignoring the facts.

[Randal]

The publicly available information doesn't seem particularly conclusive. It would be good to know what information you're relying on. It might be bad or outdated. Or maybe it's new and credible. We won't know unless you share.

It seems to me we know this: he's a terminally online video-game obsessed violent young male. Yes, I'm sure there are one or two leftists in that demographic.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"The publicly available information doesn't seem particularly conclusive. It would be good to know what information you're relying on. "

Randal - I have previously provided several links

time for you to perform your own basic education instead of ignoring information that is publicly known

[Randal]

I've been following many sources, and have been making essentially zero claims, since I find them all to be inconclusive.

The fact that you find them to be conclusive tells me that either a) you know something I don't know or b) I know something you don't know. Since you're unwilling to even proffer what it is that you think you know, I find the former unlikely

[Joe_dallas]

RAndal
you are either a liar or too lazy to do basic research after several commentators posted links

Several news organizations reporting that Tyler Robinson's roommate is transgender

https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/us-news/charlie-kirk-shooter-tyler-robinson-lived-with-transgender-partner/

[Joe_dallas]

JB - MP has a good comment when he states that comment is onlvy valid for people who wont admit the obvious.

I will add that it apply to people such as your self who wont be honest

[jb]

It's not a good comment, because I literally have no idea what either of you guys are talking about. If you want people to engage with you, it's helpful to actually present some information for them actually respond to. "There's a lot of information out there about his political beliefs" isn't helpful, especially when so much of the information that you guys were touting just a couple of days ago turned out to be incorrect.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - Dont blame me for your choice to be lazy . I posted a linked several times., Try google. numerous sources describing His leftist political beliefs, with citations.

[ThePublius]

"I haven't even seen ThePublius apologize for naming a specific incorrect person in the Friday open thread."

I'm not going to apologize for something I didn't do. I merely posted a link to an X post positing the shooter's identity and asked "could it be?" You haters latched onto that like a dog with a bone to smear and harangue someone you disagree with.

[Malika la Maize]

He was just asking questions! Didn’t you see the question mark? Lol

[Sarcastr0]

You're not going to rewrite that history, TP. Too many people saw your posting spree.

[ThePublius]

Yea, go ahead and re-read it all. Show me where I said that was the shooter. Dickhead.

And the so-called spree was only in response to the haters.

[Sarcastr0]

Could it be?

[Randal]

I heard that The Pubicus was in a romantic relationship with the shooter. Could it be?

[Riva]

More relevant now would a comment noting that the NY Times still knows nothing about Charlie Kirk's politics, but that doesn't stop their continued lies and defamation of his character. But sure, let's be extra careful not to write anything disparaging about the assassin. Wouldn't want to tarnish his character, now would we?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Neither you nor anyone else here knows why he murdered Kirk, so maybe just wait until we get all the facts. You're in such a hurry to paint this as part of your "evil radical leftist" storyline, it's pathetic. Talk about using a human tragedy for partisan political ends.

[Commenter_XY]

One takeaway from the Kirk assassination. The level of passive surveillance in today's modern society has ended all public anonymity in America. That lead me to wonder...Does this technological development (complete public surveillance) change our civic behavior as a society?

Put another way, will we be better behaved b/c we know we are watched?

[Frank Drackman]

If you’re going to shoot someone, like Michael in “1” Leave the gun, take the Canoli” and smile! smile! People won’t recognize you. Then go hide out in Sicily for a few years.

[not guilty]

Clemenza said "Leave the gun; take the cannoli" to Rocco Lampone after he killed Paulie Gatto, not to Michael. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHzh0PvMWTI

[bernard11]

Not exactly, Frank.

Clemenza's wife had reminded him to pick up some cannoli when he left for "work" that morning. He wanted to be sure not to leave it behind at the scene. I suppose he also didn't want the police to find it.

[NvEric]

Oh, there are ways around the excessive surveillance, taking more time and preparation. No system can't be broken. But, to the point of the level of surveillance, it is troubling indeed.

A question could be whether it be used only after the fact and not in real-time. Either way it's here and it's a problem too. Single angle images are not always what they appear.

One person interviewed stated there's extra surveillance assets available for more important crimes. So, everyday mundane murders are at a loss of enhanced examination.

[Frank Drackman]

Damn! They’ve made it so hard to murder and get away with it!

[Brett Bellmore]

Right now it's after the fact, but I don't think it's much longer before public figures like Kirk will be surrounded by outward facing cameras with high resolution that are capable of recognizing a gun being pointed in their direction, and warning the target.

Even that, of course, could be circumvented by using a shooting blind. Or a remotely controlled drone attacking out of the Sun.

It's an arms race, and defense is always playing catch up. Fortunately, the supply of lunatics willing to risk being caught and yet at the same time rational enough to reason out how to circumvent defenses is pretty limited.

[Michael P]

I wish we would be better behaved, but for the most part nobody is looking. There's little interest in investigating most crimes, and less interest in investigating other actions. For every Karen who goes viral for haranguing somebody over a baseball, there are a hundred more who never get attention. And all the surveillance in the Beltway still hasn't unmasked the guy who left pipe bombs outside the RNC and DNC on 6 Jan 2021.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or who built the stage prop gallows on Jan. 6.

[Jerry B.]

And why they didn't just borrow the guillotine the George Floyd protestors had outside the White House.

[Michael Ejercito]

When was there a guillotine there?

[Michael P]

August 2020: https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1528381

Possibly again in January 2025 (it's not clear whether this time it was right outside the White House, or just up the street): https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/inauguration/protesters-malcolm-x-park-against-president-donald-trumps-billionaire-agenda/65-2a1a9a70-4936-4183-b7af-297f6706b3d4

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
You exaggerate the level in the US. We don't have nearly the amount of CC_TV as the UK and the UK has far less that China, which also requires the use of self-identifying tokens for many activities. China has gone so far down this path that is developing a "digital twin" of Shanghai.
We still allow the use of cash in the US, while in some countries almost all transactions must be carried out using credit cards.
Yes, there is a lot of surveillance in the US, and we are moving toward being a full surveillance state, but we are not there yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you're discounting private surveillance like security cameras in virtually every store, building and gas station along with door bell cams.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico....do I (exaggerate the level of surveillance)?

I don't think so. How many Ring doorbells are in your neighborhood. Home security systems? Traffic cams? Business cams?

[Longtobefree]

Do you own an umbrella?

[Frank Drackman]

Now it turns out Charlie Kirk’s killer was living with a Dude “ transitioning”, tell me again how he killed Charlie Kirk for “not being conservative enough”

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

Yes his roommate is suffering from gender confusion.

worth noting how many leftists condemned any mention of gender confusion when it was first mentioned which was based on writing on the shell casing.

[John 4]

Source?

[Joe_dallas]

Several news organizations reporting that Tyler Robinson's roommate is transgender

https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/us-news/charlie-kirk-shooter-tyler-robinson-lived-with-transgender-partner/

[John 4]

Case closed!

[Mr. Bumble]

Just like your mind.

[jb]

worth noting how many leftists condemned any mention of gender confusion when it was first mentioned which was based on writing on the shell casing.

Wow, that is some amazing spin. The initial speculation wasn't "mention of gender confusion", it was outright saying that the shooter was transgender, and even linking it to a specific person. All of which was wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

Wow - trying to cover up or misrepresent the initial assessment -

The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender. Only a connection.

Now that that facts are publicly available, you are trying to dispute the early information.

[Estragon]

“The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender. Only a connection.”

But also!

“ Joe_dallas 2 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
not guilty 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk."

Factual basis?

NG - there were a couple of reports of the suspected shooter being trans. He was caught this morning, so we will likely know more shortly”

That you, bro? Pretty shameless my dude.

[John 4]

Legitimate LOL

[Joe_dallas]

Those were the facts prior to Tyler robinson apprehension. The speculation based on the writings on the shell casings was a reasonable speculation on a connection.

Its shameless to dispute the facts

[Estragon]

Nah, you’re a shameless liar. Busted!

[Joe_dallas]

The early reports on a trans connection turned out to be correct.

yet you accuse me of being a liar when in fact you are the one that is dead wrong.

Consistent with most every leftist, you have a problem with the truth
Pathetic

[Estragon]

“The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating that the suspect was transgender.” (just now)

“there were a couple of reports of the suspected shooter being trans” (Friday)

[Joe_dallas]

Estragen - note the important distinctions
A - I mentioned that reports were circulating that the suspect was transgender. I did not state that the suspect was transgender.
B - I modified the comment a few hours later when better information became available.
C - it is now publicly known that the suspect has a roommate that is transgender.

The substance of all my comments remains materially correct.

[Estragon]

“The substance of all my comments remains materially correct.”

No. This statement is demonstrably false:

“The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the [sic] suspect was transgender.”

Were you purposely lying about what you said on Friday or are you posting so much you forgot what you said two days ago?

[Malika la Maize]

You said today you’d seen no one reporting what you yourself posted! Give it up.

Also, the conversation is about jumping to conclusions without getting all the facts and your argument is “well, I jumped to my conclusion based on a reasonable read of what was then available!” Lol!

[jb]

Somehow in this Open Thread, we have Amos asking if "leftists" are going to apologize for calling Robinson MAGA*, and folks like Joe_dallas dodging and weaving trying to pretend that no one even said he was trans. Maybe y'all should work on those beams before you worry about other people's motes.

[Malika la Maize]

Holy shit, totally busted! What a jd move! Mr Expert on Everything is so careless he does t even know what he said a few days ago!

[jb]

This is a direct quote from you on the Friday thread:

"NG - there were a couple of reports of the suspected shooter being trans. He was caught this morning, so we will likely know more shortly"

[Malika la Maize]

Many people said the shooter was trans.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rumors-misinformation-about-charlie-kirk-killing-rampant-social-media-2025-09-11/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Turns out he was trans-adjacent.

[Malika la Maize]

They were wrong about the trans part though, right (from what we know now)? And JD, to whom I was replying, was incorrect, right?

“The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender. Only a connection.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They were wrong about the trans part though, right"

It does seem that they were a little bit off, yes.

[Estragon]

“trans-adjacent”

The jihad against trans people was briefly suspended due to some inconvenient facts, but is now back on with an expanded target list!

[jb]

New MAGA plan: anyone who knows a trans person is now "trans adjacent". Fun game.

On the plus side, hopefully that helps all of us agree that Trump is at least pedo-adjacent.

[Sarcastr0]

Honestly, I'm worried. Posters on here were winding up for an anti-trans pogrom for the brief window they thought they had a good narrative.

And before this whole killing went down, they were all in on disarming them.

There's some bad poison about trans stuff on the right. Worse than race; worse than illegal immigration; worse than anti-Islam.

I very much hope all those with bile in their hearts die frustrated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"anyone who knows a trans person is now 'trans adjacent'."

Of course. You can't "know" someone in the sense we're talking about without getting adjacent to them.

[Krayt]

Both sides played the confirmation bias game, "Well, of course the shooter was xyz!"

MAGA, "trannie", now "trannie boyfriend". I haven't checked this AM, so I apoologize if it's moved on to somehing new.

Of the last, in better circumstances, I'd say good lad, get some!

[Estragon]

Amazing how fast we went from “the shooter is a tranny” (including, as you point out, going so far as to actually name an incorrect trans individual!!) to “the shooter was in love with a tranny so we were right all along.”

And of course this new story, if taken at face value (why anyone would do that at this juncture after the above-mentioned missteps is another question) would seem to make the alleged trans roommate the hero here? Shouldn’t conservatives be celebrating the person who supposedly turned Robinson in? Because one thing seems abundantly clear: Ka$h had little to do with catching this guy.

[Joe_dallas]

I never said the shooter was trans
All I stated was that there was a connection based on reports which were based on writings on the shell casings.

[Malika la Maize]

A connection based on reports based on writings based on interpretations from sources derived from….lol

[Riva]

It is quite telling that you're more concerned about casting aspersions on the left's latest political assassin than examining the motivations of the radicalized left. Underlying motivations fed by about a decade of vile rhetoric directed at political opponents and manifested in a marxist cancel culture on college campuses. "One key lesson that emerged from the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was summed up neatly by a post on X: 'They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi; they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.' More and more people are coming to understand this."
https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/14/why-the-left-wants-the-right-to-lower-the-temperature/

Try addressing the sickness that has metastasized on the left instead of this pathetic distraction.

[Malika la Maize]

In front of police, DePape took the hammer and attacked Pelosi with a single blow.[20][22][23]

Following the attack, Pelosi underwent surgery to treat a skull fracture at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.[29] He also received treatment for serious injuries to his hands and right arm.

In posts on social media and at least two blogs, DePape espoused far-right views, promoting QAnon, Pizzagate, and other far-right conspiracy theories, as well as sharing far-right Internet memes.[63][64][65]
Some Republicans made jokes about the attack.[104][112] When taunting Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, sarcastically asked, “How's her husband doing?” He then remarked, “She's against building a wall in our border, even though she has a wall around her house—which obviously didn't do a very good job.”[113]

[Riva]

Rather spoiled for choice in responses. One could note that this is just another childishly stupid distraction attempting to impugn republicans rather than address the radicalization that has metastasized on the left following a decade of vile rhetoric that dehumanizes political opponents and celebrates and excuses political violence. Or one could just parrot back the trolls beloved "whataboutism" in response. Or we could also point out that what some "social media" posts may or may not have said according to what, a Wikipedia article?, really says nothing about the motivations of the lunatic Depape or, more pointedly, the actual views of the vast majority of the public, let alone the more conservative minded public. (as an aside, didn't the Wikipedia editors try to delete an article on the murder of Iryna Zarutska? no politics there I see)

You decide how you'd like to be schooled today little Malika the whatever but given your history I don't expect anything. I'm sure you've heard that before.

[Malika la Maize]

More proof we’re dealing with a bot. Responds: “rather than address the radicalization that has metastasized on the left following a decade of vile rhetoric that dehumanizes political opponents and celebrates and excuses political violence.”

To:
Some Republicans made jokes about the attack.[104][112] When taunting Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, sarcastically asked, “How's her husband doing?” He then remarked, “She's against building a wall in our border, even though she has a wall around her house—which obviously didn't do a very good job.”[113]

[Riva]

Yeah, quite a thoughtful and pointedly relevant response there. That competently non biased Wikipedia editorial sure gets right to the point of heart of the decade of the vile leftist rhetoric that dehumanizes political opponents and has manifested itself in a marxist cancel culture on college campuses. And it sure absolutely demolishes the observation above: "One key lesson that emerged from the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was summed up neatly by a post on X: 'They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi; they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.' More and more people are coming to understand this."

[Malika la Maize]

It just repeats, it’s not self aware, see?

[Riva]

"A predictable reaction to the horrible murder of Charlie Kirk among legacy media outlets has been to condemn the ugly tenor of America’s political debate and call for a timeout. On its face, the plea sounds reasonable enough, but it rests on the false idea of both-sidesism, as if left and right are equally to blame for the frightening rise of political violence. Count that as another Big Media lie and a repugnant effort to obscure the actual source and motivation of the assassination scourge. There are not two sides contributing to the horror and equally responsible for it. The single truth is that we are witnessing the inevitable result of a decade of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Kirk’s death is another piece of poisoned fruit growing out of the far left’s hysteria and its fetish-like obsession about killing the president. " https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/opinion/michael-goodwin-charlie-kirks-assassination-is-the-result-of-a-decade-of-anti-trump-rhetoric-from-the-left/

Of course, Malika the whatever dials the stupid up to 11 by relying on non relevant Wikipedia editorials in which, even at the height of Wikipedia distortion, does not evidence any republican or any conservative support for whatever underlying rationale or causes motivated the lunatic Depape.

[Randal]

as if left and right are equally to blame for the frightening rise of political violence.

The left and right aren't equally responsible. The right is far far more responsible.

[Malika la Maize]

If Riva was a human we’d say he was just lying by trying to deny a guy’s history of espousing right wing conspiracy nonsense like Pizzagate and Stop the Steal and then attacking the Democratic leaders house and husband and attempting to kidnap her would indicate his right wing motives and denying that the President joking about it indicates a metastasized sickness regarding violence against political foes in his movement, but bots don’t lie, they’re just badly programmed.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva conceding to bothsides? Wow, he's really grasping.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Amazing how fast we went from “the shooter is a tranny..."

Yeah, but in fairness it was difficult to hear with that bell.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In a recent thread at least 3 commenters bombarded me with subject changes after I had pointed out that Charlie Kirk said this:

I think it’s worth it 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.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023

Two of those commenters accused me of hypocrisy, saying that alcohol causes more deaths than guns. That too was a subject change. I had not mentioned alcohol.

But it is a fact that the only serious car crash I have ever suffered was caused by a drunk driver running a red light in front of me, on purpose, because he was late for work. He had seen the light, but he had not seen me, so as he approached the intersection with two vans stopped in front of him, he pulled onto a broad right shoulder to pass the vans without slackening speed, and popped into the intersection in front of me as if from nowhere.

The vans had blocked my sight of his approach completely. My speed limit was 35 mph, and I was perhaps going slightly faster. With the light green, I glanced right, and saw stopped vans, I glanced left and saw an empty cross lane, and then forward to enter the intersection—that left glance had used up all the reaction time I was to have. The drunk was probably going through the intersection at 40-plus. I don’t think I had even a full second to react before the collision. I had hit the brakes, but they had zero time to take effect. There was a skid mark about two-feet long.

I was driving the small Toyota pickup, without airbags, with my 12-year-old son in the passenger seat. The drunk who caused the crash was driving a new Subaru Outback. Both vehicles were totaled. We were wearing seat belts.

After impact, the drunk’s momentum took him through the intersection, leaving my vehicle spinning down the road in the direction I had been headed. After two-and-a-half complete revolutions, the Toyota came to rest against the curb in the opposite oncoming lane, pointing back in the direction we had come. Luckily, there had been no oncoming traffic.

My son was uninjured. I had suffered some kind of knee fracture which was corrected after a full knee replacement, which I had needed anyway. The drunk was uninjured—the impact hit just behind his driver’s seat. He spent about 15 minutes afterward trying to answer cops’ questions with his head turned obliquely, to avoid breathing in their direction.

Afterwards, I tensed involuntarily whenever I saw a vehicle approach from a side street ahead of me, a bit of post-traumatic stress which wore off after a few years.

I tell that story with a purpose to rebuke the subject changers, because that was by no means the most memorable or the worst affliction drunk driving visited upon my life. That had already happened years before, and I suffered that blow only vicariously. I had working for me in my newspaper’s art department a widowed woman with an only child, a nearly-grown son. She lived for him. One day, he was walking the shoulder of a road in daylight, and a drunk driver hit and killed him. That is the whole story, except that the drunk driver did no jail time. The judge who heard his case was sympathetic. The judge was a reputed drunk himself.

The longer story above is a lark to remember, compared to the way my stomach churns when I remember that woman’s anguish. She was at work when the call came.

I had been unaware of Charlie Kirk before his murder. I had to ask my son who he was. I have since learned Charlie Kirk too was a prolific and artful subject changer. I think that to improve this nation’s prospects, we will have to learn a skill to consider more than one topic worth our attention, and to admit that in the public life of the nation there remain multiple problems to be solved.

[Mr. Bumble]

When did "subject changer" become a capital offense?

[Frank Drackman]

September 10, 2025

[Kazinski]

Quit trying to change the subject Lathrop.

That monologue is actually somewhat reminiscent of Trump's "weave", which you probably haven't heard of before either.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're confusing analogies with subject changes, frankly. We were transplanting the style of 'reasoning' you were applying to guns to something where you hopefully were less emotionally invested, so that you could see that the general form of your reasoning was invalid regardless of topic. And having realized that, stopped applying it to guns.

But you were too emotionally invested in the original topic to be willing to accept an analogy, sensing a trap. Dismissing it as a subject change enables you to avoid engaging the argument entirely, and so preserve your irrational approach to the original topic.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You need to be trained in deprogramming not rhetoric for these people.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserves. There's no reason to think Kirk's killing was more tragic than Kirk thought of other deaths due to gun violence. Kirk's own words (quoted by Lathrop) are most relevant to whether Kirk's killing was truly tragic or just a sort of poetic justice. Kirk expressly advocated for the precise kind of violence that eventually claimed his life.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Kirk expressly advocated for the precise kind of violence that eventually claimed his life."
He didn't advocate violence but acknowledged that it exists.
Use of "worth" was probably a poor choice of words.

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, did you really not see how Kirk said (speaking for America) "it's worth it," it "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our" other "rights"? Kirk literally said we "have the second amendment" so that our rights regarding arms can (and should) be exercised "to protect our" other "rights." Kirk expressly emphasized that he saw "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

[Malika la Maize]

I disagree, the more natural reading is analogous to “there’s always going to be a nut who drives recklessly and harms people but given how much cars and highways benefit us it’s not irrational to value what the latter give us, it’s Ava’s acceptable trade off.” Could be seen as tone deaf but not advocating for reckless driving.

[Jack Jordan]

Malika, the analogy to driving cars relies on a false equivalency. A true equivalence would be arguing that it's our right to drive cars BECAUSE cars can be (and sometimes are) used to cause deaths. That is not a reason I've ever seen anyone assert to purport to prove a right to drive.

It's the actual killing that gives a firearm is power. That is its purpose, to a great extent--killing animals or killing people. The power to choose to kill is the point of the Second Amendment.

[Michael P]

Every time you push that argument, you make yourself look dumber.

Many of us lived during the Cold War, and are old enough to remember when "Mexican standoff" was still an acceptable idiom. Possessing a weapon doesn't mean one wants to use it.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, think at least a little about what you're saying. If you're that old, you're sufficiently old to know that the idiom wasn't merely an allusion to a mere "standoff." As I'm sure you recall, the idiom really was "mutually assured destruction." Merely having weapons wasn't the point. The ability to destroy life and even nations was the point.

Again, the crucial point isn't the mere possession of some hardware, e.g., a gun. The crucial point is the power to kill. The same is true of the Second Amendment. The right to merely keep an empty firearm or bear an empty firearm would be virtually meaningless. It's the power to kill--and even the history of killing--that is the reason for the Second Amendment. The right to choose to kill for self-defense or self-preservation is the point of the Second Amendment. Don't take my word for that. Read District of Columbia v. Heller.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika la Maize (and Bellmore), analogies can be useful. illustrative starting points for discussions. But they should only rarely—and only in cases of well-tested, near-perfect analogies—much affect the conclusions of discussions.

A good test for the analogy is to sideline it, while applying its reasoning back the other way, to see whether it feels right if used to try to make the case in its original context, without the analogy in sight. Do that with the arguments commonly used to analogize gun reasoning, and the tests show the analogies failing badly.

Guns are not like cars, not like gasoline, not like kitchen knives, not really like anything else, except maybe a little bit like other weapons. To analogize something to guns, it has to have the same kind of primary purpose a gun has. A sled dog can be analogized to a jet turbine, but not in a discussion about air transport, and still less in a discussion about backup power generation.

[damikesc]

"Bumble, did you really not see how Kirk said (speaking for America) "it's worth it," it "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our" other "rights"?"

An equation made constantly at all levels.

It is why we do not have any movement to ban cars in spite of their a) lack of being a right in the first place and b) their killing of dramatically more people every single year.

Do you REALLY want to use the "If it saves just ONE life" thought process?

[Jack Jordan]

damikesc, Kirk specifically said "gun deaths every single year" is worth enduring "so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights." Kirk specifically emphasized "the second amendment" serving "to protect our other God-given rights." How could that mean anything other than people actually using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year," specifically, "to protect our other God-given rights"?

Using cars is not at all analogous to the way people use firearms "to protect our other God-given rights" (except maybe when people use cars for the precise purpose of killing or grievously injuring other people).

[Armchair]

Sigh...this gets into the militia and Federal power issues. It's probably a far more complicated argument than is worth getting into, but the summary is this.

1) Firearms provide a unique method of balancing power for the people against central authority that hadn't previously existed in history, for various reasons.
2) Central authorities have thus sought to restrict access to firearms, as a way to effectively suppress the people.
3) By contrast, broad adoption and holding of firearms presents itself as a hedge against centralization of power within an elite few.

[Jack Jordan]

Armchair, nothing you wrote refuted anything I wrote. Were you trying to show how Kirk's words ("the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights") could mean anything other than people actually using guns to cause "gun deaths," specifically, "to protect our other God-given rights"?

If you can't speak for Kirk, please at least speak for yourself. How exactly do you think that "Firearms provide a unique method of balancing power for the people against central authority"? It's absurd pretend that "method" means anything other than (to use Kirk's words) people actually using guns to cause "gun deaths" to "protect our other God-given rights."

[not guilty]

1) Firearms provide a unique method of balancing power for the people against central authority that hadn't previously existed in history, for various reasons.
2) Central authorities have thus sought to restrict access to firearms, as a way to effectively suppress the people.
3) By contrast, broad adoption and holding of firearms presents itself as a hedge against centralization of power within an elite few.

Armchair, that is stupendously naive. Do you fail to understand that Red Dawn is fictional?

If a "central authority" seeks to disarm an individual, it would do so by means of overwhelming force. For example, think about when local police execute a search warrant which authorizes the seizure of firearms, among other items. If an occupant of the premises is foolish enough to draw down on the cops -- he is more likely to evacuate his bowels into his pants -- he can commit suicide by cop only once. And contrary to Charles Bronson's bloviation, police won't wait for his hands to turn cold before relieving him of his popgun.

And that unfortunate decedent will no longer have free expression rights, protection against unreasonable searches or seizures by the government, protection against government deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law, the right to a fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, and so forth.

[Michael P]

This right here is a polished, polite-sounding version of the kind of rhetoric that got Charlie Kirk killed. It lies about what he said and justifies political murders.

[Bwaaah]

Quite as you say.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, "the kind of rhetoric that got Charlie Kirk killed" was Charlie Kirk's own rhetoric. Kirk expressly advocated the very extreme view of USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our" other "rights."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year."

[Michael P]

Blaming the victim? Very in-character for you, even on your first day here.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, how did my words blame the victim? I did not blame Kirk for his own death. I said he got what he said America deserves. If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Don' t intentionally misrepresent the meaning of my words.

[Michael P]

You blamed the victim right in your first sentence:

Michael, "the kind of rhetoric that got Charlie Kirk killed" was Charlie Kirk's own rhetoric.

You don't even have the courage to stand behind your claims.

And I see that bot guilty reminds us of the rhetoric from Chuck Schumer that almost got Brett Kavanaugh assassinated, demonstrating owning one's hatred.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, how did my words amount to blaming Kirk for his own death? Your contention makes no sense. Kirk was (to use his own rhetoric) one of the "gun deaths every single year" that serves "to protect our other God-given rights." He advocated "gun deaths every single year" to "protect our other God-given rights," and that's what he got.

Kirk expressly advocated the extreme view of USING firearms to cause "gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our other God-given rights." If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "gun deaths every single year."

[Malika la Maize]

Nobody thinks you’re being anything but disingenuous, but if they did the invoking Schumer’s metaphor that was clearly about political consequences and was a riff off of Kavanaugh’s own rhetoric should be dispositive.

[not guilty]

The prophet Hosea said of Israel's idolatry, "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

Charlie Kirk sowed the wind with his gun worship. He tragically reaped our Moloch's whirlwind. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

[Harvey Mosley]

in other words, if she didn't want to get raped why did she dress like that?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is almost like not guiolty feels that the Second Amendment is illegitimate.

[not guilty]

On what do you base that? I am fine with the proposition that the right to keep and bear arms recognizes an individual right, which embraces the right of self-defense and defense of others, in the home and elsewhere. I also recognize that the exercise of that right can be evil when the underlying circumstances are ambiguous.

I approve of the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), including the recognition therein that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at 626.

That having been said, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the veneration of firearms. I pity the weenie who lacks the combination of brains and testicular fortitude that walking around unarmed requires.

And Charlie Kirk's assertion that "I think it’s worth it 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" is contemptible. The Second Amendment does not protect rights secured against governmental intrusion by other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, how (in your mind) does someone opposing senseless gun deaths equate to thinking "the Second Amendment is illegitimate"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, though it's requiring hard rock mining equipment at this point, every time you tell that lie your stock with the rest of us gets lower.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, prove me wrong. It's the actual killing that gives a firearm is power. Killing is its primary purpose--killing animals or killing people. The power to choose to kill is the whole point of the Second Amendment. It always has been. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. If the Second Amendment did not secure the right to choose to kill, it would be irrelevant. Merely keeping or carrying a firearm (e.g., without ammunition) would make firearms virtually irrelevant except as an object of curiosity or collection. If the Second Amendment did not secure the right to choose to kill, Kirk would still be alive today.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, what exactly was the "rhetoric that got Charlie Kirk killed"?

[ThePublius]

"Kirk expressly advocated for the precise kind of violence that eventually claimed his life."

He did not! That's a lie. You are a hater, and that's what leads you to think and say these things.

[Jack Jordan]

ThePublius, Charlie Kirk expressly advocated the very extreme view of USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our" other "rights."

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year."

If you think I said something wrong, then prove me wrong.

[ThePublius]

You're such a liar. He didn't advocated using firearms to cause gun deaths. You're using fragmented quotes of his and linking them into your own smears. If you don't understand what he was saying there's no hope of explaining it to you or convincing you.

[Michael P]

The troll understands perfectly well what Charlie Kirk said and meant. It's just irrelevant to the work of justifying Charlie's murder.

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, show me which of my words in any way were "justifying" Kirk's "murder"?

I did not in any way try to justify Kirk's killing. I said he got what he said America deserves. If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Don' t intentionally misrepresent the meaning of my words.

[Jack Jordan]

ThePublius, you don't understand your words or don't understand Kirk's words or don't understand the words of the Second Amendment. Kirk clearly understood that the words of "the Second Amendment" necessarily meant "some gun deaths every single year."

Clearly, merely keeping or carrying a firearm (e.g., without ammunition) would make firearms virtually irrelevant except as an object of curiosity or collection. If the Second Amendment did not secure the right to choose to kill, Kirk would still be alive today. Kirk, himself, understood that very clearly. Kirk even said "That is a prudent deal." "[T]he second amendment," i.e., the right and power to cause "some gun deaths every single year" is "worth it" precisely "to protect our other God-given rights."

It's the actual killing that gives a firearm is power. Killing is its primary purpose--killing animals or killing people. The power to choose to kill is the whole point of the Second Amendment. It always has been. Read District of Columbia v. Heller. If the Second Amendment did not secure the right to choose to kill, it would be irrelevant. If the Second Amendment did not secure the right to choose to kill, it wouldn't even be in our Constitution

[Jack Jordan]

ThePublius, if you truly believe that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths."

[Armchair]

"I think it’s worth it 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."

This is a rational way to think about things. Every single item we have in society will cause some deaths.

Automobiles kill far more people than firearms in the US, every year. Alcohol is a massive killer of people in the US, including drunk driving.

We could ban automobiles or alcohol, which would "prevent" these deaths. Or at least potentially lower the numbers. But that comes at major other costs, and may just drive the use underground (like it can with firearms).

[Jack Jordan]

Armchair, Charlie Kirk expressly advocated the very extreme view of USING firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year" as a MEANS "to protect our" other "rights." Do you really think that's rational?

If you think that's not what Kirk meant, please explain how you envision "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" other than by some people using firearms to cause "some gun deaths every single year."

Your analogies to automobiles and alcohol relied on obviously false equivalences. A true equivalence would be arguing that it's our right to drive cars BECAUSE cars can be (and sometimes are) used to cause "deaths every single year." Or arguing that it's our right to drink alcohol BECAUSE alcohol can be (and sometimes is) used to cause "deaths every single year." Those are not reasons I've ever seen anyone assert to purport to prove a right to drive or a right to drink.

If you think I said something wrong, then prove me wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where the fuck did you come from?

[Krayt]

Suggesting he was advocating "some gun deaths" as in those deaths are proper use, killings to preserve rights is a new one. Assholes shooting things up from time to time was the value-weighted trade off, vs. the real reason for the second amendment, which is specifically not about hunting or self defense against thugs.

And sorry, liberals, those things are a derivative corollary of keeping and bearing arms, being necessary to the free state.

I didn't like Kirk, he was the least reasonable of the trio with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. But in response, he might just say, oh well, hoisted by my own statistics, my own roll of the dice. Ah well.

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, what is it that makes you think that "the real reason for the second amendment" was "specifically not about hunting or self defense against thugs"? Those certainly weren't the only reasons, but why do you think they weren't included in the reasons the Second Amendment was included in our Constitution?

If you think that "keeping and bearing arms" is secured only because it's "necessary to the free state," then how do you think civilians with guns today helps secure the U.S. as a free state?

[Krayt]

250 years with only one major hiccup?

Compare to various European democracies, many of which have had dictatorship still in living memory.

Claim for rhetorical purposes it's an anachronism if you like.

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, why would you think that civilians owning guns accounts for why we haven't had a dictatorship? Why wouldn't you think that there's so much more to our Constitution and our history that accounts for that fact?

If you think that "keeping and bearing arms" is secured only because it's "necessary to the free state," then how do you think civilians with guns today helps secure the U.S. as a free state? I just don't see how.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, that's simply NOT what he said, which is why you're not even giving us cherry picked complete sentences.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, why are you obsessing over "complete sentences"? We're not construing a carefully-worded statute. I'm trying to distill the meaning of Kirk's words, not merely reiterate his words. Even the Second Amendment stands as a monument to the absurdity of obsessing over a "complete sentence" in this particular context.

The Second Amendment, itself, means virtually nothing without the words and meanings that were not expressed in the Second Amendment. The mere right to "keep" or "bear" arms is nearly meaningless without the right and power to choose to use arms to kill animals or people. The mere right to "keep" or "bear" firearms is utterly meaningless without the right and power to keep and bear and use ammunition.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, I haven't seen you write anything that leads me to believe that you have any idea what Kirk thought about people who use guns to kill people. Kirk seems to have been much more clear-eyed than people like you and other Kirk supporters who insist Kirk didn't mean the fair meaning of his words.

Kirk clearly understood that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily meant people would use guns specifically for the purpose of causing "deaths every single year." Kazinski even said there was "national consensus" about this. Nobody commenting here today is so naive or ill informed as to actually believe that all the many gun deaths caused every single year are merely accidental.

[wvattorney13]

Your argument in this thread in entirely dishonest. Nobody, not Charlie Kirk or anyone else, has suggested that a robust Second Amendment means that you need to go out and murder someone from time to time. Nobody.

It's so absurd that it isn't even a strawman. A strawman argument is at least someone related to the actual argument.

Kirk's position is simple and in line with any 2A supporter: Yes, having legal guns will cause deaths that a gun prohibition culture might prevent. But the benefits of 2A freedoms outweigh those burdens. No different than guns and alcohol.

But you want to take quote snippets and intersperse them with your paraphrase to come up with a ridiculous assertion that nobody has ever made.

[Jack Jordan]

wvattorney, what words did I write that made you think that I said somebody "suggested that a robust Second Amendment means that you need to go out and murder someone from time to time." That's just not even close to anything I said.

You not only clearly misrepresented my argument, you clearly misrepresented Kirk's argument. Kirk clearly did not merely say "having legal guns will cause deaths." Kirk clearly said "the second amendment" serves "to protect our other God-given rights." Kirk expressly mentioned "gun deaths every single year."

How do you believe "the second amendment" actually does serve "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by some people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"? I've asked that question repeatedly in this thread today, but not one person even has tried to answer that question. Please give it a shot.

[Armchair]

"Charlie Kirk expressly advocated the very extreme view of USING firearms to cause "

Incorrect.

[Jack Jordan]

Armchair, prove me wrong. Show us how you know what Kirk thought about people killing people.

Or at least speak for yourself. How do you believe "the second amendment" actually does serve "to protect our other God-given rights" other than by some people using guns to cause "gun deaths every single year"? I've asked that question repeatedly in this thread today, but not one person even has tried to answer that question. Please give it a shot.

[not guilty]

The right to keep and bear arms does not protect any right other than the right to use force in defense of self or of others. It protects a plethora of wrongs, though.

[Jack Jordan]

The Second Amendment secures the right to choose to kill or inflict grievous bodily injury. The mere right to "keep" or "bear" arms is nearly meaningless without the right and power to choose to use arms to kill animals or people. The mere right to "keep" or "bear" firearms is utterly meaningless without the right and power to keep and bear and use ammunition.

[not guilty]

My point is that keeping and bearing arms does not protect the rights protected elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. (Except perhaps the right to worship firearms.)

Shooting an assailant or intruder does not protect the shooter's free expression rights. It does not protect the shooter against unreasonable searches or seizures by the government. It does not protect the shooter against government deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It does not protect the shooter's right to a fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury. And so forth.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — It does protect the powers of states to organize and arm militias. We have become so accustomed to see that written out that we forget it without embarrassment. For anyone even pretending a traditional or historical argument, it ought to be the whole of the story. Plausibly framed historical queries in support of finding other intended uses come up empty.

Alas, there has been no shortage of misframed queries—mostly not even qualifying as historical, because they are so purpose-bound to the context of present minded arguments. Those dictate that discourse on the purpose of the 2A must be taken entirely out of historical context, lest they fail to encompass whatever modern subjects are insisted upon.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, the Second Amendment doesn't "protect the powers of states to organize and arm militias." The original Constitution did that, and the Tenth Amendment re-iterated that's what the original Constitution did.

Amendment X: Regarding state militias, any "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively."

Article I, Section 10: every "State" may "without the Consent of Congress" "engage in War" if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (This is one of the provisions of our Constitution that highlights the absurdity of Trump's March 14 Proclamation that we are at war with Venezuela and a Venezuelan invasion has been on-going since at least mid-March).

Article I, Section 8: Congress must make laws to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Article II: "The President shall be Commander in Chief" of "the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Of course you make a good point. Perhaps I should have said, "further protected." It remains a historical fact that the 2A had no other intended objective than reassurance that the states could field militias, and tailor their uses to each state's various purposes.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, there was a time when I said the same about the Second Amendment's purpose. But the SCOTUS opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller and Leonard Levy in his book "Origins of the Bill of Rights" convinced me such thoughts were very far from accurate. The opinions in Heller and Levy's book are well worth reading.

In fact, I think it's fair to make a point about that very issue that Yale Professor Akhil Amar has made. Southern states after the Civil War (in which white men no longer had a monopoly on the right to keep and bear arms) are responsible for that false view of the Second Amendment. They (and SCOTUS justices who thought like them) didn't want formerly enslaved people thinking they had any such right.

[Malika la Maize]

Good on Trump here:

President Donald Trump said Saturday he is "ready to do major Sanctions on Russia" once all NATO countries have started "to do the same thing" and pause their purchases of oil from Moscow.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/09/13/trump-russia-nato-putin-trade-sanctions-.html

[Frank Drackman]

So it’ll never happen, great!

[Don Nico]

Now, let him be a leader and "cast the first stone." Putin has been asking for it since he met Trump in Alaska.

[Zarniwoop]

President Donald Trump said Saturday he is "ready to do major Sanctions on Russia" once all NATO countries have started "to do the same thing" and pause their purchases of oil from Moscow.

Why would any European leader trust Donald "TACO" Trump to keep his word about Russia and sanctions at this point? Oh look, another two weeks of Waffle Taco!

[Bob from Ohio]

They should pause their purchases of oil from Moscow even if Trump does nothing. They are helping to kill Ukrainians with each purchase after all.

Virtue is its own reward.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree with this, but I wonder if it's economically possible for Western Europe to do it. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know fuel there is already pretty expensive.

[damikesc]

Why is Europe so insistent on financially supporting Russia far more than they support Ukraine?

In the end, this is Europe's problem, not ours.

[Malika la Maize]

“Why is Europe so insistent on financially supporting Russia far more than they support Ukraine?”

You may be confusing Europe with NATO. It’s almost all Turkey buying Russian oil. .

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-nations-hooked-russia-oil-gas-energy-2129488

[Don Nico]

Indeed, and for that reason Trump asked NATO rather than the EU to stop buying Russian oil.

[Krayt]

Hasn't the west been working hard for years now to get Europe off the Russian tit? Continuing to help Putin with hard western cash as he invades Europe is a complete embarrassment and can't be allowed, any more than the West being so dependent on China they are cowed down to look the other way with things like Tiawan?

[Malika la Maize]

I imagine all the MAGA free speech warriors here will stand by principle and defend this guy against his being punished for his off campus speech:

The University of Kentucky has placed an employee on paid administrative leave after he posted an “offensive remark” about the death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. 

Brad Van Hook, UK’s key shop manager, commented on a WKYT Facebook post, paraphrasing a quote from American lawyer and civil rights advocate Clarence Darrow, the Herald-Leader reported. 

“I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction,” Van Hook’s comment said.

UK spokesperson Jay Blanton confirmed Van Hook is under investigation, stating the university referred the comment to “appropriate officials.” 

https://kykernel.com/117163/news/uk-employee-under-investigation-for-facebook-comment-about-charlie-kirk/?fbclid=IwY2xjawMyb7hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHozQhKxqTPJc82ARbb_fWbnYD8l-j-BoVRpkhBvikLjY8NwoT2nhPcTHiAUM_aem_yaOKtuv85tU3Ly0_oNCHJA

[LexAquilia]

Freedom of Speech, not Freedom From Consequences.

[Jack Jordan]

Lex, your view doesn't reflect our law. Your view was the rule according to Blackstone in Britain. But it missed by a mile the primary point of our Constitution. Our public servants must identify a very compelling public interest before they can have the power to punish the speech of a citizen. As James Madison put it in 1794 (which SCOTUS reiterated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964), in “Republican Government” the “censorial power [generally] is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”

As Chief Justice Roberts (writing for SCOTUS) emphasized, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011) (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983)) (cleaned up). See also Snyder at 453 (discussing when “[s]peech deals with matters of public concern”).

Government “cannot condition” a citizen's “employment” on "a basis that infringes [any] employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 413 (2006) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 142).
“The First Amendment limits the ability of [government even as an] employer to leverage [even an] employment relationship to restrict” any “liberties” that even government “employees enjoy” as “citizens.” Garcetti at 419. Even when restricting speech of “employees” when “speaking as citizens about matters of public concern,” government must prove it imposed “only” such “speech restrictions” as were “necessary for” government “to operate efficiently and effectively.” Id.

[LexAquilia]

Jack,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I encourage you to review Eugene's analysis, he is, after all a prominent free speech expert, and he comes to a difference conclusion.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/12/firing-public-employees-who-publicly-praise-violent-criminal-attacks/

[not guilty]

How does Professor Volokh's conclusion in the linked post differ from Jack Jordan's analysis, LexAquila?

[Jack Jordan]

Lex, thank you also for your thoughtful response and for providing that link. I quickly read Professor Volokh's analysis, and I think we reached the same conclusion. We addressed some of the same authorities.

Professor Volokh and I do seem to differ on one profound and vital point. He sees "the government as sovereign." That view, I respectfully submit, clearly is erroneous, especially in the context of considering the meaning of "the freedom of speech" and "press" secured by the First Amendment. If you'd like to know what I mean, please see "Why Is the First Amendment First? Locke Is the Key."

https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/why-is-the-first-amendment-first?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

[Jack Jordan]

Lex, I later re-read the end of Professor Volokh's article, and I see what you mean. He mentioned lower court judges who issue decisions that conflict with the SCOTUS precedent that he and I quoted. That is a real problem, especially regarding the freedom of expression. Judges are some of the most determined (and most blatant) violators of our Constitution in that area.

[Michael P]

You're begging the question of what expression is "constitutional protected". It's not as black and white as you imply.

[not guilty]

How is the comment quoted above arguably unprotected by the First Amendment, Michael P? That is not a close question.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P. How is “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction,” arguably unprotected by the First Amendment when spoken by a university key shop manager in a comment on a Facebook post?

[Jack Jordan]

Michael, the question should not be "what expression" is "constitutional protected." The question must be how our Constitution and SCOTUS precedent construing and applying our Constitution protect the expression at issue. All expression is protected by our Constitution (by due process of law). So the question is what process is due. The process varies on whether the government contends that expression is criminal, or whether the government is repressing a viewpoint, or whether the government is regulating based on the content of expression, or whether the government is regulating commercial expression.

As SCOTUS emphasized, an “Amendment’s plain text covers” the conduct (expression or communication), so “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). The government must “justify” any “regulation” thereof, i.e., “must demonstrate” that regulation was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition” of protecting expression and communications. Id. The government “must affirmatively prove that” regulation was within this nation’s “historical tradition” of protecting expression and communications within “the outer bounds” of each such “right.” Id. at 19.

[not guilty]

Not all expression is First Amendment protected, but none of the exceptions would seem to apply here: obscene material, incitement of imminent violence, fighting words, speech incident to criminal conduct, criminal solicitation, libel, true threats.

[Jack Jordan]

not guilty, speaking of "exceptions" to the First Amendment is the "doctrinal" approach, i.e., the approach too often taught by too many judges. That's the approach of many people who oppose the freedom of expression. I'm not saying or implying that everyone who expresses that approach opposes the freedom of expression. I'm saying that approach was advocated and taught by many judges who do oppose at least some aspects of the true American freedom of expression. That approach is clearly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the plain text of our Constitution.

The text of Bruen that I quoted is consistent with our Constitution. So is much of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In Sullivan, SCOTUS (often quoting James Madison) unanimously emphasized the following to discuss the true meaning of the plain text of our Constitution. Our “Constitution created a [republican] form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ [Our Constitution] dispersed power” in many ways precisely because “of the people’s” extreme “distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at levels.” So in our “Republican Government,” the “censorial power is” necessarily generally “in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”

No “mere labels” (including labels assigned to expression or labels assigned to people) can justify “repression of expression.” “The test is not the [mere] form in” (or the label under) which government “power” was “applied but” whether “such power” was “exercised” constitutionally.

[Poxigah146]

Isn't the argument from your side that a government agent should be punished for their off-duty speech because it could make the community think they're not going to do their job fairly? Or some nonsense like that?

[Malika la Maize]

So you’re defending this guy?

[Poxigah146]

In a manner of speaking, yes. I do think government employees generally should be able to say whatever they want off the job. But if people who say things that offend liberals can be fired, I want consistency for things that offend conservatives.

My principles aren't just based on whose ox is being gored.

[Jerry B.]

“I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction,”

Quoting Mark Twain is punishable?

[Krayt]

Cancel culture is now wielder by the other guys.

We are shocked! Shocked!

The irony is when Trump was first elected, some left commentators wrote of fear "Oh no, now they will do to us what we've been doing to them!", wield twitter cancel culture power, I guess.

That never happened. But now it's the dragon unleashed.

It shouldn't be. People who are not me made this bed. They even prognosticated it would be bad if they lost control of it.

"It would be bad."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyKQe_i9yyo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxnpY0owPkA

[Michael Ejercito]

They dragged us across this line when they called for firing Emmanuel Cafferty.

https://archive.md/LcTXk#selection-857.337-873.8

[Frank Drackman]

Got me a Drone this weekend, “DJI mini 4K” just shy of 250gms so doesn’t have to be registered, already took it up to 400 ft, 3 hrs and no crashes.
I know it’s sending everything about me to the CPP, screw it, it’s fun!

[ThePublius]

I'm amazed at how inexpensive these have become.

I'm looking at one that's similar, and has a full color 4.5" screen on the remote transmitter, that I can get for $105!

[Frank Drackman]

Mine was $400 (got the 2 extra batteries, spare propellers, carrying case) uses your phone for the screen and flight info, got about 20 minutes per battery, but I was putting it through its paces.

[LexAquilia]

DJI makes great products. Even though I know it's corrupted by the CCP, I am still a huge fanboy. I have several of their products including drones.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I want one that has its own display, and doesn't use my phone.

[ThePublius]

Speaking of drones, per Frank's post, above, it strikes me as near security malfeasance that Kirk's security detail wasn't operating drones, especially to sweep the nearby rooftops. What's up with that?

[Frank Drackman]

Like Flounder in “Animal House”
“You fucked up! You trusted us!”

Grank

[Krayt]

Like it's famously said of the US military, they're great at fighting the previous war, I hope they're becoming more proactive. After 9/11, the government literally invited Hollywood and sci-fi writers to come up with bizarre attacks nobody had thought of yet.

I believe the current worry is China unleashing barges of tens of thousands of micro drones to swarm and blow things up, which is to say US warships anywhere near Tiawan.

One hopes our military is pondering defenses against that.

Newt Gingrich, yes that Newt, wrote alternative history novels. One such began with thousands of little craft peacefully encircling US ships then suicide blowing up and crippling the US fleet.

And that's people. Tens of thousands of micro drones cranking off an assembly line?

[LexAquilia]

The way I heard it was about wars in general and it was along the lines of this: this year's war is fought with the last war's offensive strategy and tactics.

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump has sought to oust Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve on grounds that she committed mortgage fraud, by falsifying crucial records to obtain more favorable terms on a home loan.

But new documents call that narrative into question.

A loan record reviewed by The New York Times suggests that Ms. Cook did not try to deceive lenders about one of the properties, a home in Atlanta, that she purchased before joining the nation’s central bank in 2022.

That document, as well as another submitted as part of Ms. Cook’s nomination process, complicates Mr. Trump’s attempts to remove Ms. Cook, days after the government asked a federal court to block her from participating in the Fed’s meeting this coming week, where the central bank is expected to lower interest rates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/business/lisa-cook-mortgage-fed-trump.html

[LexAquilia]

>A loan record reviewed by The New York Times suggests that Ms. Cook did not try to deceive lenders about one of the properties, a home in Atlanta, that she purchased before joining the nation’s central bank in 2022.

But not the others.

You didn't even read this before pasting it did you?

[Frank Drackman]

That’s our Queenie!

[Malika la Maize]

Of course Francis doesn’t know how a word being plural works.

[OpinionsVary]

Not getting your point here. The allegation is she claimed two different homes as her primary residence at the same time. This shows she did not. She claimed one primary home and one vacation home during this period. And, well, you are allowed to claim one primary home. That's rather the point.

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe it was three homes.

[LexAquilia]

A couple issues, first it's more than two homes, and second one of them is a rental which isn't a primary residence or a vacation residence.

[Glaucomatose]

What was the third home? The claim from Pullte is that she claimed both her Ann Arbor home and her Atlanta condo as primary residences on mortgage applications. However, the documents released this weekend show that she indicated to her lender that the Atlanta condo was a vacation residence. That blows up any claim that she was trying to defraud her lender by deceiving them into thinking it was her primary home.

BTW, the only evidence for the "rental" claim is an allegation that the condo was listed for rent for two weeks in 2022, but the listing was taken down and the property was never actually rented.

[Estragon]

One of the more delightful ironies about the work of Mr Pulte here is that he ended up screwing his own parents! They are looking at some real sizable property tax bills after it was revealed that they have been claiming the homestead exemption on two different properties including one that was… gasp… being rented! Reuters even talked to the renters! Karma is undefeated. Pulte should do Ms Chavez-Deremer next— but he won’t.

[Bob from Ohio]

They can afford the back taxes.

Its good to have mass media in your back pocket. Reuters does a big investigation in furtherance of whataboutism.

[Malika la Maize]

Exposing hypocrisy in public officials is a long valued service of a free press

[Bob from Ohio]

"public officials"

Pulte's parents are not public officials.

Is exposing hypocrisy in the relatives of public officials also a long valued service?

Most people think attacking parents so as to get at their child is pretty bad. But you and Estrogen carry on.

[Michael P]

Is exposing hypocrisy in the relatives of public officials also a long valued service?

Perhaps. At least starting when the corrupt relatives of hypocritical public officials were no longer named "Hunter".

[Malika la Maize]

Is Pultze going after his parents?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't think misrepresenting your status for a homestead rebate is a federal crime, but apparently the states or localities involved are.

[LexAquilia]

A reporter went to the address and spoke to the tenants.

[OpinionsVary]

She may own more property. No idea. But the allegation of mortgage fraud is related to only two specific properties.

See Pulte's statement here: https://x.com/pulte/status/1958111353505189889

And his letter to the AG here: https://x.com/pulte/status/1958138434171629636

[Kazinski]

Doesn't show any such thing, it shows she got a preliminary loan estimate telling the truth, and realized she could get better loan terms if she lied.

[Sarcastr0]

As was explained to you Friday:

“ On its face, the evidence cited above suggests that the lender was aware of her intended use of the Atlanta property as a "Vacation Home" and issued the mortgage on that basis.”

[Kazinski]

And if the lender was aware she was lying on the loan application it makes them a co-conspirator, it doesn't absolve her, it makes her guilt more plain.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes Reuters actually uncovered a conspiracy.

[wvattorney13]

Side issue: Why does a lender care? They've got your credit, income, and a down payment. If you don't pay, they foreclose on the house.

If I am using the property as a primary home or for cocaine parties, why does the bank care?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Which mortgage are you going to default on first, the one for your primary residence, or the one for the house you use for cocaine parties?

[Kazinski]

Most loans are sold, and they are sold to investors who are depending on the representations in the contract.

Plus foreclosures are expensive, time consuming, and there is no guarantee you will recoup your entire investment after expenses.

Not to mention that the lender/investor gets A higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk.

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, the primary and vacation makes it plural, sport.

[Poxigah146]

This woman is an outright crook, and if she wasn't a black Democrat, you wouldn't be making excuses for her.

[Glaucomatose]

Other than the fact that she's a Black Democrat, what makes her a crook, exactly?

[ThePublius]

Mortgage fraud, isn't that what we're talking about here?

[Malika la Maize]

Which claim seems undermined now, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

How about you tell us?

[Malika la Maize]

Seems undermined to me, what do you think?

[Bob from Ohio]

"reviewed by The New York Times "

Conclusive!

We'll see what the grand jury thinks.

[Glaucomatose]

As they haven't even tried to bring charges yet, what makes you think we'll see that?

[Kazinski]

No it doesn't, what it might do is implicate the lender as a.co-conspirator in the mortgage fraud.

The fact that she got a loan estimate using the true use of the property, but ultimately got the loan under false pretenses knowing full well how much she was saving makes her more culpable than less.

The reason mortgage fraud is federal crime not just a state crime is because the federal agencies bundle mortgage loans and guarantee mortgage securities based on their risk profile. Owner occupied homes are less risky.

If the lender, or their employee, aided Cook in her deception that just makes it worse.

[Malika la Maize]

Kathleen C. Engel, an expert on mortgage fraud at Suffolk University’s law school, said that, in order to prove fraud, prosecutors would need to establish that Ms. Cook misled her lender about her intended use of the property.
“The fraud allegation is dramatically weakened by the evidence that this was on her application,” Ms. Engel said. “She was candid about how she was using the property.”

Mr. Pulte previously referred the matter to the Justice Department, which has opened a criminal investigation into Ms. Cook. He said in a second post on social media this weekend: “The idea that she got estimates and then declared it as a primary on her mortgage agreement is even more concerning for Dr. Cook.”

But Ms. Engel said Mr. Pulte was misunderstanding or misrepresenting the mortgage application process. As long as Ms. Cook disclosed her plans to use the home as a secondary home to her lender, there is no fraud, she said. Ms. Engel said she would not necessarily expect publicly available loan documents to show an acknowledgment from her lender that the property would be used as a second home.

“Pulte would know this, or would have access to people who would know this at F.H.F.A.,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/business/lisa-cook-mortgage-fed-trump.html

[Kazinski]

"prosecutors would need to establish that Ms. Cook misled her lender about her intended use of the property."

The question right now is what the 5 justices on the Supreme Court would need to sustain her firing for cause, that is if they find the Presidents determination is reviewable.

He has stated the cause, presented the evidence, and all we have to counter that is Cook's excuses.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you lying or just deluding yourself?

You have the facts wrong. And were told that on Friday,

How are you back like this, not even addressing the points made that you were wrong on the facts?

[Kazinski]

What fact do I have wrong?

Her loan documents say the loan was for a primary residence, the preliminary estimate says it was for a vacation residence.

The NYTimes itself says:

"The disclosures do not appear to be legal documents, and they do not prove that Ms. Cook was transparent about her intended use of the property throughout the loan application process."

[Sarcastr0]

“ Her loan documents say the loan was for a primary residence”

What is your source for this? The whole ideal where is that it’s been shown to be a lie.

Above you suggest maybe it’s a conspiracy with the loan company, to try and keep the story going.

For fucks sake man.

[Kazinski]

Try to catch up Sarcastro, the legal loan documents were attached to Pulte's referral letter dated August 15th.

Its right here in black and white.

https://www.creditslips.org/files/putle-criminal-referral-letter-1.pdf

Now I won't tell you exactly where the occupancy clause is, but I will make it a little easier, once you find it in the first contract it will be in the same section of the 2nd contract.

One more hint, its not on page 1.

And the documents are true copies of the originals with her signature and noterized.

Do you ever embarrass yourself?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the reuters piece before you shot off?

"Her lawyer Abbe Lowell has said that James mistakenly stated that the property would be a primary residence. He says that she made it clear in other documents that it would not be her primary residence, and that her broker understood that."

This is just like blaming Walz for that other shooting. You've been proven wrong, but you're going to keep on keeping in, because you have no shame.

[Kazinski]

Your flailing, you go from "what's your source for this?", to her her lying attorneys excuses. Same attorney I might add told us for months Hunter was innocent before he was first convicted then pled guilty to all the tax charges.

So its only the actual legal documents she had to sign to get the money where she lied?

That's not the kind of simple mistake that you can make unintentionally, because it results in a completely different contract. And I can attest they specifically cover the occupancy clause when you sign the mortgage.

Her contract also states that the only way the lender can waive the occupancy clause is in writing, and of course that only applies when there are unforseen circumstances after closing, not if she never intended to comply in the first place.

Where is the written waiver?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cook must have done pretty well for herself if she could buy three homes and afford Abbe Lowell to represent her.
Or, does she have a sugar bro/sister footing the bill?

[Keldonric]

At the end of the day, you’d need to call the lenders as witnesses. One thing’s for sure: those of us without multiple homes are going to learn a lot about what it’s like to juggle them if this ever gets to trial. Lol.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "The disclosures do not appear to be legal documents, and they do not prove that Ms. Cook was transparent about her intended use of the property throughout the loan application process."

And yet here you are claiming in fact the *opposite* has been proven.

That's just not true! The story that comports with the current evidence is Cook's.
For your story to work, you need to posit an unsupported conspiracy.

[Kazinski]

Are you normally this confused?

Nothing wrong with having a few beers watching football on a Sunday afternoon, but don't try to multitask.

The NYTimes wrote that not me. The first clause is clearly referring to the new unofficial loan estimates that Lowell is trying to use to raise doubt, but the Times is trying provide a warning to its readers in the second clause that it really doesn't prove anything, or meaningfully dispute the authority of the actual documents Pulte referred to the Justice department.

[LexAquilia]

"He says that she made it clear in other documents that it would not be her primary residence, and that her broker understood that."

So not part of the mortgage application but a wink & a nod understanding between her and her broker?

Why do you think this exonerates her? Fraud is fraud. If her and her broker did conspire to mislead the underwriter and then whomever is going to buy the loan then guess what? That's two people guilty of fraud, instead of just one.

[LexAquilia]

lmao look what's buried in that article:

“The disclosures do not appear to be legal documents, and they do not prove that Ms. Cook was transparent about her intended use of the property throughout the loan application process.”

You people fall for literally any narrative that supports your tribe, from groyper assassins to global warming to Lisa Cook is innocent and Biden was mentally fit...

[Bored Lawyer]

Here are some thoughts about the assassination of Charlie Kirk:

(1) What makes it so noteworthy is precisely that is was an assassination. Kirk was targeted for his political views, and for being an articulate, outspoken advocate of them. Had he been killed in, say, a liquor store robbery gone wrong, it would be sad, but not receive anywhere near as much comment and attention.

(2) The left is guilty of tolerating violence to suppress political speech. The recent examples are too numerous to state, but one example. The reaction to the killing by Louis Mangione. Celebrated in many quarters, and even the “responsible” politicians felt they had to qualify their condemnations with a “but.”

And “by any means necessary” means something. It means including assassination, if need be. When you keep repeating that, some people will take it to heart.

[For more examples, read here, if you can get past the paywall: https://www.commentary.org/articles/noah-rothman/left-excuses-embraces-political-violence/%5D

(3) Those who think they have scored some points by referring to Kirk’s comments on the Second Amendment are both tasteless and misguided. Everything in life is a tradeoff. That the price of freedom is some negative things does not justify the negative things. Freedom of speech permits some very hateful and hurtful things to be said. Banning them would be worse. A person who utters them can still be labelled a grade-A human waste portal.

That was his point about the Second Amendment. Anyone who thinks that’s a “gotcha” or somehow justifies his murder is a moron. (And that’ being kind.)

(4) One noxious troll (who lost his job) called Kirk “divisive.” All advocacy of ideas is “divisive,” especially if it is on a topic people disagree on. The real meaning of that criticism is “he undermined progressive orthodoxy.” Well, too bad. That’s a feature, in my book.

Mutilating children in the name of quackery is a moral outrage and should be banned. Kirk believed that, and so do a majority of people in the country. If that’s “divisive,” then I plead guilty.

[Armchair]

Well said.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know why he was targeted - these meme assassins seem to just be into famous people.

But you have a narrative.

The left is guilty of tolerating violence to suppress political speech
Vibes again.
-----
It's all lies, authored by loathing and delusion. BL is among those working themselves into a frenzy even though their initial plan didn't pan out.
It would be silly if it didn't have such a whiff of rationalizing right-wing violence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whatabout vibes?
You are and always will be a douche.

[Malika la Maize]

“What makes it so noteworthy is precisely that is was an assassination.”

Like the killing of those Minnesota legislators and their family members and pet? Or, as an attempt, the attack on the Pelosi household?

[Mr. Bumble]

assassination, the murder of a public figure. The term typically refers to the killing of government leaders and other prominent persons for political purposes—such as to seize power, to start a revolution, to draw attention to a cause, to exact revenge, or to undermine a regime or its critics. Such politically motivated murders have taken place in all parts of the world and in every period of history.
Britannica
It seems MN may qualify, Pelosi not so much.

[Malika la Maize]

DePape gave an interview to San Francisco Police Department officers in which he said he planned to hold Nancy hostage and that he saw her as the "leader of the pack" of lies told by the Democratic Party. He said that he considered himself to be fighting "tyranny" and likened himself to the American founding fathers.[7] DePape told the police that he planned to kidnap and interrogate Nancy, and would break her kneecaps if she "lied" to him, believing that by doing so, "she would then have to be wheeled into Congress" as a "warning" to other members of Congress.[23][41] He also told police that he was on a "suicide mission" and had additional targets in mind,[33] naming California governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden—the son of then-president Joe Biden—as prospective targets.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, but not quite an assassination.

[Michael Ejercito]

Like the killing of those Minnesota legislators and their family members and pet?
Those did properly receive national media attention.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Those did properly receive national media attention."

Attention but not wall to wall coverage. State level legislators are barely known in their own state, let alone nationally.

Lots of women got engaged on August 10 but Tay Tay's was the story. Kirk, though not universally known, was a far bigger figure than those legislators so gets far more coverage.

[Sarcastr0]

RADDATZ: You talked about Democrats who have been targeted. Trump said nothing about the political violence against Democrats. In fact, he blamed the radical left. What's your reaction to that?
︀︀
︀︀SPENCER COX: Well look, President Trump is very angry.

This is all transparently bloody shirt bullshit.

[Bob from Ohio]

""I have been briefed on the terrible shooting that took place in Minnesota, which appears to be a targeted attack against State Lawmakers," Trump said in a June 14 Truth Social post. "Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God Bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place!" Truth Social day of attack

He knew Kirk, who had been a major part of the 2024 campaign, a major figure in the conservative movement. Like 300 million other Americans, he had never heard of the dead on June 14

Being more outraged about people you know well is perfectly normal. You have treated normal Trump things as somehow abnormal for 10 years now, so keep it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Well it’s okay as Presidents to have no standards if your mad!

[Malika la Maize]

“Being more outraged about people you know well is perfectly normal.”

He’s not the President of people he knows.

[Michael Ejercito]

Compare the reaction to the murder of William Long to the murder of George Tiller.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey new goalposts.

Media coverage isn't the question - it's the level of outrage you demand is utterly one-sided.

You, and BL, and a whole more assholes on here are using this shooting to gin up yet more hatred against the left.
When someone on the left is killed, you deflect or remain silent.

It's all bad faith.

The left is guilty of tolerating violence to suppress political speech
Not your post, but I want to emphasize - fuck this libel. Hypocrites all.

[Kazinski]

Show us how to be better Sarcastro.

Damn right we are going use this, we are going to make 2026 the Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, Albrego Garcia election.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t cry when people point out that you’re just using it for performative politics, then, Bob, er, I mean Kaz.

[LexAquilia]

It's not performative, it's righteous.

[Malika la Maize]

“we are going use this”

[Glaucomatose]

Now who's celebrating Kirk's assassination?

[Michael P]

The left, just like they celebrated Brian Thompson's.

[Kazinski]

I'm not celebrating his assassination, but I'm not forgetting either.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, you are openly stoked as hell to have someone you can use as a martyr.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t use shootings to justify hating conservatives. Never have,

You are into some will to power lies are a legit means to win elections shit.

You sound like a villain in a bad movie.

[Sarcastr0]

I learned about the Willie Horton ad as a low point for the GOP’s cynicism.

Here you are super stoked to do the Willie Horton strat but even bigger and less honest.

Ams you are so broken you openly boast about it.

[LexAquilia]

You are going all the way back to Willie Horton?

Are you that pathetic and desperate?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dripping with desperation.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why was it a low point?

[Bob from Ohio]

"fuck this libel"

Libel, sure. Luigi Mangione says he appreciates all the leftist support!

[Sarcastr0]

You lie about that when you are openly pro murder yourself, so long as it happens in prison.

Liar and hypocrite.

[damikesc]

Kinda weird how it is only the Left openly celebrating his death.

[Malika la Maize]

“we are going use this”

[Bob from Ohio]

"lie about that"

Stop gaslighting, plenty of left support for Luigi Mangione. He's so dreamy!

"so long as it happens in prison."

Capital punishment is not "murder".

[Sarcastr0]

Luigi as left wing hero has been nutpicking from the start, Bob.

I can never tell if your dishonest or just got more passion than morals.

And you don’t root for capital punishment. You root for prison murder.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You root for prison murder."

Oh?

[Sarcastr0]

OK, take advantage of the fact that the comments are not indexed.

Anyone whose read you for any amount of time knows about your bloodthirst.

[Bob from Ohio]

"take advantage of the fact that the comments are not indexed."

So you just lied without evidence. based on a vibe

There is less than 10 years of posts archived according to a comment last week. Afraid of a little research?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's Bob's fault that you're making claims that you can't support with evidence?

Didn't you make falsely make this claim like a week ago?

[SRG2]

Research - posted here on VC - shows that lethal violence is far more the province of the right, but that doesn't fit the narrative, of course.

The advantage of your being a lawyer is that we can assume that your argument will be good but its truth irrelevant.

[Bob from Ohio]

"posted here on VC"
The CATO stuff? No bias there.

[Malika la Maize]

That nest of Marxist-leftists, CATO!

[SRG2]

Exactly. If you disagree with Bob, you must be a Cummynist

[SRG2]

The CATO stuff? No bias there.

Cato is now left-leaning?

[Randal]

The left is guilty of tolerating violence to suppress political speech. The recent examples are too numerous to state, but one example. The reaction to the killing by Louis Mangione.

Retarded. You apparently weren't able to find a single example of leftist violence to suppress political speech, because Mangione sure as shit isn't one.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Charlie Kirk is a recent example.

HTH

[Randal]

Uh huh. Really buying the "too numerous to state" claim.

Its time to do something about the threat to public safety that these people represent.

You guys, from Trump on down, are just trying to gin up reasons to overthrow the Constitution, just as Lathrop explained. So... fuck you. You won't succeed.

[LexAquilia]

Protecting innocents from tranny bullets isn't "overthrowing the Constitution".

HTH

[Malika la Maize]

I thought the line was that he lived with a trans person now.

[LexAquilia]

He did have a tranny partner & roommate, but I'm referring to the half a dozen or so tranny co-conspirators that plotted and assisted him.

He didn't act alone.

[not guilty]

LexAquila, who are these "half a dozen or so tranny co-conspirators that plotted and assisted" Mr. Robinson? Go ahead and name names or, in the alternative, admit that you are talking out your ass.

[jb]

Bizarre to try to use Mangione as an example of the left endorsing violence against political speech. Brian Thompson was not a politician and was not even particularly politically outspoken.

[Bob from Ohio]

The killer was making a political point.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, you fail.

[not guilty]

Bob, what do you fancy was "political" about Luigi Mangione's motivation? The shooting seemed to be borne of frustration about an insurer's not timely paying valid claims.

How is that "a political point" that he "was making"?

[LexAquilia]

If it was all about his claims, then why didn't he shoot his handler but instead opt to go for the CEO?

To send a message. But listen, I know you're retired and don't think good anymore, but your inability to understand this is kinda pathetic. Even for an ideologue such as yourself.

[Malika la Maize]

If you got of your mom’s basement and held a job you might get the idea that a CEO is more responsible for a company’s policies than their front line employees.

[LexAquilia]

I can figure out that it wasn't the CEO who rejected a specific health claim.

Apparently you and ng don't know enough about how the human world works to draw that conclusion yourselves.

[not guilty]

I never suggested that it was tied to an individual insurance claim.

[Bob from Ohio]

From his "manifesto" as recited in wikipedia

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as [sic] our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed [sic] them to get away with it."

[Malika la Maize]

Is this from RFK Jr?

[Michael P]

They're denialists, so of course they are going to deny that Mangione had a major political objective in assassinating Brian Thompson. They don't care about the evidence, they have a narrative to uphold.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You seem to be suggesting that it is only the those on the political left who "...tolerate violence to suppress political speech." That is laughably wrong. It is the kind of comment that makes clear that the commenter has only partisan intentions, and no desire or ability to discuss things rationally or objectively. It's the kind of comment that changes no one's mind, and adds nothing to the conversation.

If we really want to address the problem of political violence, we have to consider how it comes from both ends of the political spectrum. I have no idea how to approach solving the problem, but it certainly isn't limited to the political far left or far right.

[Darwinnie]

Where’s the outrage over Brian Kilmeade calling to “just kill” mentally ill homeless? The moral depravity of the MAGA crowd never ceases to astonish.

[Michael P]

I never heard of the dude before your comment, but apparently he already apologized: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/brian-kilmeade-issues-brief-apology-153626284.html

[jb]

Do you think that comment was more or less inappropriate than the comments about Charlie Kirk's killing that a bunch of people have gotten fired for? In particular, the dude from MSNBC that apparently went so far as to call him "divisive"?

[Malika la Maize]

The long time co-host of Fox and Friends along with War Department chief warrior Pete ‘Hic Hegseth? More disingenuous.

[Darwinnie]

Oh, he apologized? That’s all it takes?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, he seems to believe in Nazi-level purges of undesirables.

Sorry doesn't change that.

He'll get away with it, I'm sure. The GOP isn't policing that kind of thing for...reasons.

[Darwinnie]

When MAGA ask why people call them Nazis, this is why. He all but called it the “final” solutions. And instead of gassing, he called for involuntary lethal injections. Next it’ll be transgender people.

[ThePublius]

Where do you get the "MAGA crowd" stuff from?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hes trying to deflect from all the recent Kirk news.

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, the guy co-hosted Fox and Friends with Trump’s current War Secretary? He’s safely in the MAGA crowd I’d say.

[Estragon]

“Did the ppl in the White House inform POTUS that one of his greatest haters, this goofball, girly man, weak governor of Utah, was going to sit there and do the entire briefing on the murder of Charlie Kirk and essentially give us almost no facts and just preach unity with the aggressively LGBTQ governor of Colorado?”

Steve wants his trans jihad!

[RedheadedPharoh]

I guess you haven't heard the reports that it was a coven of trannies that plotted the Kirk assassination.

They are already jihading against us. Its time to do something about the threat to public safety that these people represent.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If he wins his fall election, Zohran Mamdani would order New York’s police department to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu in the event that the Israeli prime minister ever traveled there, the city’s leading mayoral candidate said in a recent interview."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/13/zohran-mamdani-benjamin-netanyahu-new-york

Seems like he is planning to be an authoritarian. Politician ordering arrests is bad, right?

[SRG2]

Do you not like it when politicians order arrests? Or does it depend on the politics of the politician?

[Bob from Ohio]

No politician I support has ever ordered an arrest to my knowledge.

Do you have specific examples?

Bad attempt at whataboutism as well. Is the next mayor being authoritarian or not?

[Kazinski]

Well at least not without a legal warrant or probable cause.

[Malika la Maize]

Lock her up!

[Mr. Bumble]

I' sure Bill would be eternally grateful.

[Michael P]

Few mayors should plan an arrest in advance -- that's generally supposed to be the job of more dedicated law enforcement officials. It's markedly worse when they conspire to arrest a foreign head of state or government attending the UN.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Politician ordering arrests is bad, right?"

Especially unlawful arrests.

[Michael P]

In other news, The Nation is doubling down on Nazi analogies:

There is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.”

Which of our resident leftists will denounce that?

[not guilty]

Hmmm. I note that you have elected not to quote this language from the linked article:

Many of the facile defenses of Kirk and his legacy are predicated on the idea that it’s acceptable to spread hateful ideas advocating for the persecution of perceived enemies as long you dress them up in a posture of debate. This is just class privilege. The man who said, “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot” said it while wearing a nice shirt and a tie on a podcast instead of tattered overalls in the parking lot of a rural Walmart. That does not make it any less racist.

Nor this:

It’s this that makes it particularly galling to see him cast by some as a free-speech warrior. He created a professor watchlist explicitly designed to get academics fired who dared talk about the right’s usual assortment of verboten topics—anything to do with race or gender, in particular. He also offered the standard right-wing plaint about left-wing indoctrination in American universities even as he went on campus tours trying to indoctrinate young people into his hard-right Christian nationalist worldview.

Nor this:

Some of the people valorizing Kirk insist that all of his toxicity was acceptable because at least he was open to debate—a bar so low, you’d have to dig into the Mariana Trench to get to it. And he certainly paid lip service to it. “We record all of it so that we put [it] on the Internet so people can see these ideas collide,” he said of his own streaming operation. “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

But Kirk’s actions undercut that notion every day. His entire business was saying the other side was evil and dehumanizing them. The debates were simply performances, and he could not have an entertaining public fight without opposition. Turning Point did not work to bring people together; it worked to bring about a country where anyone who wasn’t a white Christian nationalist wasn’t welcome. I won’t celebrate his death, but I’m not obligated to celebrate his life, either.

As for the Goebbels analogy, just as with Nazi comparisons generally, consider what Mike Godwin himself has said:

I urge people to develop enough perspective to do it thoughtfully. If you think the comparison is valid, and you’ve given it some thought, do it.

https://time.com/4837881/godwin-law-interview-2017/

[Michael P]

You're right, I didn't quote the dishonest spew that attacked a dead man who was killed for engaging with people who disagreed with him. I focused on the honest admissions.

You are evil, and you work hard to defend and excuse evil.

[LexAquilia]

Charlie Kirk was murdered.
Is an employee or a student of yours supporting political violence online?
Look them up on this website.
Send information on anyone celebrating Charlie’s death.

Follow us on X/Twitter: @forcharliekirk1

ATTENTION:
This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of over 30,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.

This is the largest firing operation in history.

https://www.charliesmurderers.com/

One way for anyone who wants to get involved to get involved. It's up over 30,000 Democrat Supremacists now. Some employers are being stubborn, but keep the pressure on they'll back down when they can't pay the bills.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks for demonstrating the disingenuous of this campaign.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Its entirely genuous! Righteously so.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pretty sure you're the same guy as LexAquilia.

[LexAquilia]

Woah, get this man an Obvious Award stat!

[Frank Drackman]

you've got him confused with Magnus Pilatus

[LexAquilia]

lol

[Sarcastr0]

https://fxtwitter.com/USAttyHabba/status/1967267036532539875

"Flags were ordered to be lowered by the President of the United States. Lower. Your. Flags."

Luv when my admin makes impotent threats.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It sounds like there was a high school Social Studies teacher recorded in class saying that although she didn't condone violence, Charlie Kirk was a terrible person.

Hypo: If a high school Social Studies teacher discussing RBG right after her death had told his students that she was a terrible person, should he have been fired?

I would say so. That's the type of thing teachers should be telling their bartenders, not their students.

[BrotherMovesOn]

To a jury this must go!