How about the case of a school full of dead kids with bullets in them?
'Cause that’s what Charlie was asked.
Don’t confuse him with actual context.
I’m totally amazed that he thinks he can dodge the actual question.
Removing the God part makes sense because it is irrelevant to you and your rationalization of unfettered gun possession. But that does not have anything to do with Charlies statement.
Charlies’ irrelevant inclusion of God in his statement is part of what what makes it non-serious. There is a market that accepts his statement. You agree with some of it. But that does not make it serious. Technically the statement is bullshit (without regard for the truth). It demonstrates that CF was a fraud peddling bullshit to a pitiable audience. That context does not make the statement serious.
It’s funny how Pedro just completely ignored that. 
But it’s only a problem if you have empathy.
I’ve always found that trope difficult to imagine. Even in the military we were not warned about the dangers of weapons while cleaning.
I wonder what percentage of “accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun” cases are actual deliberate suicide. I bet a lot. I clean my guns a lot (when the Voices tell me to!) and I can’t imagine how doing that I would accidentally shoot myself, especially in the head as opposed to, say, the hand or the leg.
Prunes the gene pool
Past performance is not indicative of future results? Seems to be doing pretty good stringing some along and Gish Galloping all about them.
Doesn’t really change anything to add child deaths to the argument in comparison with other tragedies. School shootings are an epidemic and they should receive epidemic fixes, not restrictions to our gun rights.
Having said this I respect the position of people on the left who disagree with me on this issue and have different positions on gun control because school shootings are such a complex and delicate issue to address, although I usually do not receive the same respect back.
Full context below for Charlie Kirk quote on second amendment rights:
Wise man.
If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?
:cough: Uvalde :/cough: Sorry Charlie, I didn’t mean to interrupt you bullshit with an inconvenient incident that showed you stupid idea didn’t work. But it was only 19 kids so… yeah, I sure that should you get shot everyone will just give it the same attention we always give to children being murdered outside the womb that you folk can’t just accept as the price we pay for women’s autonomy . . . not that you care about that.
How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That’s why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks.
Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that we don’t fucking allow fucking people to fucking enter those places with THEIR FUCKING ARs.
I don’t know why his strong religious beliefs are tripping you up so much or making you think he is a fraud. It was his truth that certain rights were granted by God. So what if he believes this? Many people in society and public life have beliefs I consider to be wacky. Unless they are impinging on my shit I do not go around calling them out on it and what not. I’m very critical of all religions but I do not think people who are very religious believing God has agency in their life is that strange.
I expect you’d think Sainted Ronald Reagan was a flaming Liberal Leftist, and Nixon even more Antifa yet.
Pot. Kettle.
Bullshit. You’re all over political in this thread. And constantly posting.
This reminds me of the many times I’ve seen a conservative barge into a situation they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as “liberal”, take a giant shit on the floor, then run away giggling to tell their friends about how they made the leftists cry. Really, at best you’re annoying. The janitor gets called to clean up the mess and the conservatives are completely forgotten the next day, if not sooner.
You are neither as remarkable nor as powerful nor as memorable as you would like to think you are. Which is why so many can’t remember why or when they put you on ignore, or even if they’ve seen a post by you before. Despite being here for 25 years.
How sad, that the highlight of your time here is your pathetic mewlings in this thread.
Good one!
[emphasis added]
The notion that so many ammosexuals have that their AR-15’s or the like will someone “protect” them if the US Federal government decided to oppress them is laughable. The only reason maggots and vermin such as yourself are permitted such weapons is because your corporate/oligarch overlords have weaponry orders of magnitude better than yours with which to oppress or even murder you.
I’m not - he treats questions like an Olympic skier treats those little flag poles they have to go around.
What if “restricting” gun rights is the only fix for the epidemic?
Every other nation that had a spat of school shootings restricted guns and now they don’t have nearly as many, some entirely none. We seem to be the only country trying a different solution and we’re the only one where there is an actual market for bullet resistant backpacks for school children and tiny dead bodies stacked up on a regular basis. What we’re doing isn’t working.
Your buddy Charlie talking about deaths from driving, but we don’t actually treat those deaths as inevitable - that’s why we invented seat belts, then shoulder belts, the airbags and crumple zones and side airbags and…. We didn’t give up driving, but we required safety equipment. We require that you prove your competence to get licensed. And so on. All of these things have reduced motor vehicle deaths since, say, the 1950’s.
What do we, as a society, do about gun deaths? Why the exact opposite! More guns with fewer restrictions for everyone!
Turns out if you allow everyone, including the crazies, to have guns some of the crazies get guns and shoot people. Who would have guessed?
Said by Kirk, though the quote says Pedro
Using the second amendment to defend against a tyrannical government is going to look a whole lot like assassinating the supporters of the tyranny. Whether those supporters are politicians, pundits, or police officers. Using the second amendment to defend against a tyrannical government means shooting people.
I don’t understand how your point disagrees with his point on this one. Do you think that we allow people to go into schools with rifles, contrary to the rules around baseball games, airports, and banks? If not, then what’s the difference between these places in terms of people with rifles getting in?
Charlie is a fraud because he has no strong religious beliefs. He has no creed or tradition. He is an opportunist who uses a ubiquitous religious concept to disguise his money making fraud.
Charlie performs theater for a segment of the population that is willing to pay well for it. That is allowed in our society, but that doesn’t make it serious or true.
If guns are to protect us against potential tyrants, then he justified the manner of his death.
Ever hear right-wingers talk about gun free school zones? If they had their way, open carrying an AR on a combat sling right to the principal’s office isn’t supposed to raise the slightest concern unless your a hoplophobe.
Bullshit.
So what? That’s not how it actually is. Your argument here doesn’t actually make sense. No one is allowed to carry an assault rifle onto school property and if they do the police are called immediately.
You’re trying to paint Kirk’s point as stupid because we’re not allowed in baseball games, airports, and banks with guns but in contradiction we’re allowed to march right into schools with guns and that’s false, of course. His proposal is that the difference is that there’s more security in the former places than the latter, and that’s basically true – it’s the entry control that makes the difference, not the fact that guns are banned in baseball stadiums but not schools.
I don’t think the solution is hiring a million americans as armed guards to guard everywhere, but that doesn’t make your point make any more sense.
Please clarify. You Tube has ample evidence of non-serious CK theater and my link above is to Turning Point materials. He was a well paid entertainer.