This is a point that's probably very obvious to many Americans, but something I hadn't really considered about the second amendment and the like is that freedom is kind of zero-sum: a consequence of the right to bear arms is that armed guards might have to be stationed at schools, and that cops treat everyone like a potential armed criminal.
This last shooting will probably not lead to a meaningful change in gun-control, but it will create pretexts for this administration to crack down on certain political movements.
the idea of the right to bear arms was to overthrow a dictatorial government if need be, not to milsim in city centers or shoot up schools. The 2nd amendment is not really meaningful in the age of palantir and f35s.
There are still many details yet to come out, and the future is as ever unwritten, but I think a better historical analogue for the killing of Charlie Kirk is Horst Wessel, who Goebbels turned into a martyr for the NSDAP.
It means that a number of users hit the "flag" button, but not yet enough to kill the thread.
And what does that mean? Probably that several users considered this off-topic, and (under current circumstances) to be political, and more likely to result in a flamewar than in a useful discussion.
I honestly cannot imagine why someone just now is posting an article about how a singular crime is used as a justification for a massive government power grab and an excuse to oppress the ruling party's political opponents, despite negligible evidence of any connection to the crime. [1]
I don’t think there is yet enough evidence to show the political beliefs of the suspect in either direction. Seems X/Bluesky is awash with certainty that it’s “the other side” but I have not seen any good hard evidence of this
True, but for the purposes of a government power grab, the details of the actual crime, who did what and why, are hardly relevant. It only matters that the government can generate enough propaganda to make people think there's a connection.
The Reichtag fire was caused by a Communist militant- at the time where "Communist" meant litterally "Stalinist".
Even if the Charlie Kirk murderer was a crimson red trans gay pedophilic crypto scammer and card-carrying Democrat personally instructed and paid by Obama, the point here is "using him as a pretext to destroy all opposition under false pretense".
Yes, and it is bad if the government do that. It does not mean it is then correct to claim he has beliefs he doesn’t. We should be saying “we don’t know his beliefs and the government is making a power grab”
Holy wow, where do you spend your time to arrive at that narrative? I read both right and left wing media to get a balanced view, but I haven't seen anyone that far off the deep end yet. The most reasonable actual fact from this whole thing that I've read is that the guy was terminally online and that's what drove him crazy. Some people could learn from that.
The only facts we know are: Mormon Christian, terminally online, left some memes in casings.
Considering the facts we can't know anything, the messaging is coming from both sides based on their own agendas. The remaining fact is: Trump's government is attempting a power grab based on this murder.
This is a common thing to hear, but I'm not sure how true it is. It would be nice to hear from a historian, but Hitler and the Nazis did many things that were not legal in the early days. They did dodgy and possibly illegal things to give Hitler German citizenship so that he could run in German elections. He literally employed a private army which was committing violent acts across Germany. Not long after being appointed chancellor he personally ordered murders and assassinations including the night of long knives.
Alas, this is the same argument that can be used against the 1st amendment and the political opposition: "Rejoicing in Kirk's death is immoral, therefore the 1st amendment doesn't apply, and let's abusively prosecute anyone we can tie to him in any way".
You said that morality must be above the laws. That means that one has priority over the other. aredox is arguing based on that, not confusing the two.
Not really, the Nazis did manage to push a lot of pro-nazi judges everywhere, who judged that what their friends were doing was legal, but fair judges wouldn't have danced to the same tune.
A Brown shirt killed by a communist/socialist was always illegal, but a communist/socialist killed by a brown shirt was always self defence and always legal.
That's why the rule of law is so important, and that's why it shouldn't have exceptions for anyone, even policemen (arguments could be made for elected people as long as they are elected though).
This is a point that's probably very obvious to many Americans, but something I hadn't really considered about the second amendment and the like is that freedom is kind of zero-sum: a consequence of the right to bear arms is that armed guards might have to be stationed at schools, and that cops treat everyone like a potential armed criminal.
This last shooting will probably not lead to a meaningful change in gun-control, but it will create pretexts for this administration to crack down on certain political movements.
the idea of the right to bear arms was to overthrow a dictatorial government if need be, not to milsim in city centers or shoot up schools. The 2nd amendment is not really meaningful in the age of palantir and f35s.
If your “freedom” requires walking around backwards waving a pistol is it really freedom?
There are still many details yet to come out, and the future is as ever unwritten, but I think a better historical analogue for the killing of Charlie Kirk is Horst Wessel, who Goebbels turned into a martyr for the NSDAP.
What does [flagged] mean on this post?
It means that a number of users hit the "flag" button, but not yet enough to kill the thread.
And what does that mean? Probably that several users considered this off-topic, and (under current circumstances) to be political, and more likely to result in a flamewar than in a useful discussion.
Interesting, what triggered the post now?
I honestly cannot imagine why someone just now is posting an article about how a singular crime is used as a justification for a massive government power grab and an excuse to oppress the ruling party's political opponents, despite negligible evidence of any connection to the crime. [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/jd-vance-char...
hadn't seen that news yet, thanks for sharing.
[flagged]
I don’t think there is yet enough evidence to show the political beliefs of the suspect in either direction. Seems X/Bluesky is awash with certainty that it’s “the other side” but I have not seen any good hard evidence of this
> I have not seen any good hard evidence of this
True, but for the purposes of a government power grab, the details of the actual crime, who did what and why, are hardly relevant. It only matters that the government can generate enough propaganda to make people think there's a connection.
The Reichtag fire was caused by a Communist militant- at the time where "Communist" meant litterally "Stalinist".
Even if the Charlie Kirk murderer was a crimson red trans gay pedophilic crypto scammer and card-carrying Democrat personally instructed and paid by Obama, the point here is "using him as a pretext to destroy all opposition under false pretense".
Yes, and it is bad if the government do that. It does not mean it is then correct to claim he has beliefs he doesn’t. We should be saying “we don’t know his beliefs and the government is making a power grab”
Hoping for a polymarket bet so this can be resolved.
Holy wow, where do you spend your time to arrive at that narrative? I read both right and left wing media to get a balanced view, but I haven't seen anyone that far off the deep end yet. The most reasonable actual fact from this whole thing that I've read is that the guy was terminally online and that's what drove him crazy. Some people could learn from that.
So your money is on the 18 hours of Helldivers a day and not the company he kept while doing so?
>An extremist right-wing citizen murders another slightly less extremist right-wing politician,
It's mind-boggling how successful this messaging has been, considering the facts.
How convenient that the facts haven't been verified by anyone not a Republican.
[dead]
The only facts we know are: Mormon Christian, terminally online, left some memes in casings.
Considering the facts we can't know anything, the messaging is coming from both sides based on their own agendas. The remaining fact is: Trump's government is attempting a power grab based on this murder.
Memes that are very specifically associated with a far-right subculture.
No? How could you possibly come to this conclusion
This is what I return to every time when someone confuses morality and laws.
100% of Hitler's reign was legal. Everything he did was 100% legal.
Morality is and must be above laws.
(Edit: ChatGPT reminds me that Hitler's post-1933 actions were legal; the earlier (and failed) "Beer Hall Putsch" was illegal.)
This is a common thing to hear, but I'm not sure how true it is. It would be nice to hear from a historian, but Hitler and the Nazis did many things that were not legal in the early days. They did dodgy and possibly illegal things to give Hitler German citizenship so that he could run in German elections. He literally employed a private army which was committing violent acts across Germany. Not long after being appointed chancellor he personally ordered murders and assassinations including the night of long knives.
which is also the excuse many nazis used at the nuremberg trials
Alas, this is the same argument that can be used against the 1st amendment and the political opposition: "Rejoicing in Kirk's death is immoral, therefore the 1st amendment doesn't apply, and let's abusively prosecute anyone we can tie to him in any way".
No it can’t, you’re literally confusing immoral with illegal in your comment.
You said that morality must be above the laws. That means that one has priority over the other. aredox is arguing based on that, not confusing the two.
Not really, the Nazis did manage to push a lot of pro-nazi judges everywhere, who judged that what their friends were doing was legal, but fair judges wouldn't have danced to the same tune.
A Brown shirt killed by a communist/socialist was always illegal, but a communist/socialist killed by a brown shirt was always self defence and always legal.
That's why the rule of law is so important, and that's why it shouldn't have exceptions for anyone, even policemen (arguments could be made for elected people as long as they are elected though).
> the Nazis did manage to push a lot of pro-nazi judges everywhere
Which is what republicans and Trump have been doing the past 10-15 years. Just need to look at how the supreme court is behaving as of late.
[flagged]
[flagged]