I've changed my mind about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Here's why.

[Anjelica]

Apparently you haven't seen the video of his escape. He clearly had a carry bag.

 

[Spit.it.Out.AtH]

What I thought was weird is Tyler Robinson had just been accepted to that college on a presidential scholarship. Right after Kirk started putting pressure on Trump to release the Epstein client list. Watched a video of Robinson reading the letter he got. Could have been a hit. Could have just been murder. Guess we’ll never know. I don’t trust the government to tell us right or left side.

 

[NoConvexity]

The killer was right next to Charlie, on his right side.

CO2 powered projectile combined with Google glasses that have a reticle visible to the person wearing them.


Sounds crazy huh. Lol

 

[Gevurah]

Abortion fits the legal definition of murder.

Nah mate, callin’ abortion murder’s not right, not in most places anyway. Few states over there are tryin’ to make it count as homicide, but that’s not really takin’ off yet an’ it’s dead messy with the law.

Right now, abortion’s its own thing, not classed the same as murder.

No one "owns" the fetus. It has its right to life, independently of its parents.

Believe it all you want, lad, but like your other statement, that’s not the law... it’s not universally recognised, simple as that.

Just ’cause you’ve got your own point of view on somethin’ don’t mean you can misrepresent the law.

Facts are facts, not just your opinions.

 

[Gevurah]

The killer was right next to Charlie, on his right side.

CO2 powered projectile combined with Google glasses that have a reticle visible to the person wearing them.


Sounds crazy huh. Lol

As a convicted felon who spent 9 years in the pen, I’m not allowed to own a gun no more, but before that I’d been handlin’ firearms most of me life, lad.

Did that shot sound like an airgun to you? Nah, that was the proper crack of a live round, not some CO₂-powered toy.

I’ve seen the same video you’re on about, and that’s just a no… there’s even a clip of the woman who’s supposed to be next to the bloke you’re talkin’ about, and whatever that noise was, it would’ve been deafening just a metre away from him.

That’s absolutely not right.

 

[Vwj]

What I thought was weird is Tyler Robinson had just been accepted to that college on a presidential scholarship. Right after Kirk started putting pressure on Trump to release the Epstein client list. Watched a video of Robinson reading the letter he got. Could have been a hit. Could have just been murder. Guess we’ll never know. I don’t trust the government to tell us right or left side.

Interesting, he got his scholarship in 2021 and left after his first semester, yet Charlie started asking for the release of the files in 2025
Not sure your conspiracy timeline adds up, must try harder

 

[Gevurah]

What I thought was weird is Tyler Robinson had just been accepted to that college on a presidential scholarship. Right after Kirk started putting pressure on Trump to release the Epstein client list. Watched a video of Robinson reading the letter he got. Could have been a hit. Could have just been murder. Guess we’ll never know. I don’t trust the government to tell us right or left side.

Candace Owens put a video out a couple days ago, right, and she reckons Israel had Charlie killed. No joke. I’m inclined to believe her—she and Charlie were proper close. Why would she stick her neck out like that on her channel with nearly 5 million people and publicly say she thinks Israel did it, after trying to buy him off didn’t work?

You should go check it out. It’s not the most insane theory I’ve heard.

I’d believe that over some nutter drivin’ 400 km just ’cause his girlfriend’s a trans-bird and throws his whole life away, when otherwise all signs point to him being a smart kid.

 

[GuanoLoco]

At least show the context of the quote ? He said gun deaths are worth it to protect the 2nd amendment and your other rights......

That just proves my point. Key words "Armed Citizenry". Give a nut a gun and they go nuts. Maybe there are some people that just shouldn't have guns. Maybe a person should have to be vetted even in a private sale. We can do more to reduce gun deaths besides putting more guns out there. But gun nuts don't want that, they would rather have more gun deaths than have any remote possibility of any kind of screening, or restriction on gun ownership. Guns do mot kill people, nuts with guns kill people. Maybe we should screen for nuts?

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Nah mate, callin’ abortion murder’s not right, not in most places anyway. Few states over there are tryin’ to make it count as homicide, but that’s not really takin’ off yet an’ it’s dead messy with the law.

Right now, abortion’s its own thing, not classed the same as murder.

My statement is true regardless of whether any law classifies abortion as homicide. You're mistaking the law for a source of morality – it isn't.

Believe it all you want, lad, but like your other statement, that’s not the law... it’s not universally recognised, simple as that.

Again, laws change all the time. They don't tell us what's right/wrong. They execute justice based on existing moral principles.

Just ’cause you’ve got your own point of view on somethin’ don’t mean you can misrepresent the law.

Didn't misrepresent the law. Criticised it.

And what I'm asserting isn't an opinion – it's a rationally-derived statement.

 

[Orange_Squirrel]

@Mudroadranger How long have you been a Gunsmith for? Is it a hobby or a job that you have to go to?


Is there any evidence that cunt is a good marksman? Shooting range logs, etc? Possibly practicing in the woods or something?

Is the Mauser a difficult weapon to shoot, that requires veteran marksman to be effective with?


Has any pictures been released of the actual firearm itself? Maybe the barrel could have been shortened?
Surely with the disassembly the barrel could have been half way down his thigh and the other half on the torso? That will hinder his movement but enough to be inconspicuous?



Apologies for the fuck ton of questions.


Hoping you mange to see this through all of your notifications.

 

[Mr. Meat Sled]

I was right. I said a young lefty most likely with a trans bf. Hahaha. Apparently he left a note for his trans bf/gf before he left..

Just like Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.

 

[Gevurah]

My statement is true regardless of whether any law classifies abortion as homicide. You're mistaking the law for a source of morality – it isn't.

Nah, mate, you’re the one that said abortion’s legally murder... I never went on about morality.

You brought up the law, so I just set it straight, abortion ain’t classed as murder.

Again, laws change all the time. They don't tell us what's right/wrong. They execute justice based on existing moral principles.

Aye, laws change all the time, don’t they? But that just proves me point, if abortion were truly “murder,” it wouldn’t hang on whatever way the law swings. The fact it does shows it’s not rooted in some universal moral truth.

Didn't misrepresent the law. Criticised it.

It’s grand to have a go at the law, but that ain’t what you did. You said abortion’s murder (a legal claim) and that’s proper false, mate.

And what I'm asserting isn't an opinion – it's a rationally-derived statement.

If it were proper rational, it wouldn’t go against the actual law.

What you’ve said’s just a moral claim, not a legal fact... it's your opinion, end of story, mate.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Nah, mate, you’re the one that said abortion’s legally murder... I never went on about morality.

I didn't. I said it "fits" the legal definition of murder. My argument wasn't about passing legal claims.

And abortion is about morality. Law precedes and is built on morality, you cannot ignore the latter.

Aye, laws change all the time, don’t they? But that just proves me point, if abortion were truly “murder,” it wouldn’t hang on whatever way the law swings. The fact it does shows it’s not rooted in some universal moral truth.

Any law is rarely rooted in "universal moral truth". Societies change, moral values change, and so laws change. That doesn't disprove the moral debate around abortion in any way.

It’s grand to have a go at the law, but that ain’t what you did. You said abortion’s murder (a legal claim) and that’s proper false, mate.

I did not. It's not legal until the moral debate is settled.

If it were proper rational, it wouldn’t go against the actual law.

You can have a rational argument that may go against the law. The law isn't some universal standard against which you see if some argument is rational.

What you’ve said’s just a moral claim, not a legal fact... it's your opinion, end of story, mate.

Moral claim based on rational derivation ≠ opinion. Opinion = unjustified belief. Again, nothing to do with the law. You keep clashing two different categories.

 

[Gevurah]

I didn't. I said it "fits" the legal definition of murder. My argument wasn't about passing legal claims.

And abortion is about morality. Law precedes and is built on morality, you cannot ignore the latter.

Nah, mate, sayin’ abortion “fits” the legal definition of murder is still a legal claim, and it just don’t fit... murder’s the unlawful killin’ of someone, which abortion ain’t in most places.

Sure, law’s based on morals, but callin’ it murder don’t cut it unless it matches the law proper.

Any law is rarely rooted in "universal moral truth". Societies change, moral values change, and so laws change. That doesn't disprove the moral debate around abortion in any way.

Aye, I get that laws ain’t usually based on some universal moral truth, but me point still stands, if abortion were truly murder, it wouldn’t depend on what the law says at any given time.

The fact it does just shows it ain’t settled as a moral absolute.

I did not. It's not legal until the moral debate is settled.

Nah, mate, that’s not how it works. Legal definitions aren’t decided by moral debates, they’re set by statutes and courts, and by that standard, abortion is not classified as murder.

You can have a rational argument that may go against the law. The law isn't some universal standard against which you see if some argument is rational.

Aye, you can have a rational go at the law, but the legal system itself’s built on principles like justice, order, and rights.

If an argument’s truly rational, it would not inherently contradict the entire legal framework, it’d be workin’ with the reasoning behind it.

Moral claim based on rational derivation ≠ opinion. Opinion = unjustified belief. Again, nothing to do with the law. You keep clashing two different categories.

Even a “rational” argument starts from subjective values that ain’t universally proven, so your moral claim’s still just a structured opinion, not a fact.

Just ‘cause it’s consistent in your head don’t make it legally or empirically true... you’re mixin’ up internal logic with universal validity, lad.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Nah, mate, sayin’ abortion “fits” the legal definition of murder is still a legal claim, and it just don’t fit... murder’s the unlawful killin’ of someone, which abortion ain’t in most places.

Sure, law’s based on morals, but callin’ it murder don’t cut it unless it matches the law proper.

Aye, I get that laws ain’t usually based on some universal moral truth, but me point still stands, if abortion were truly murder, it wouldn’t depend on what the law says at any given time.

The fact it does just shows it ain’t settled as a moral absolute.

Nah, mate, that’s not how it works. Legal definitions aren’t decided by moral debates, they’re set by statutes and courts, and by that standard, abortion is not classified as murder.

Aye, you can have a rational go at the law, but the legal system itself’s built on principles like justice, order, and rights.

If an argument’s truly rational, it would not inherently contradict the entire legal framework, it’d be workin’ with the reasoning behind it.

Even a “rational” argument starts from subjective values that ain’t universally proven, so your moral claim’s still just a structured opinion, not a fact.

Just ‘cause it’s consistent in your head don’t make it legally or empirically true... you’re mixin’ up internal logic with universal validity, lad.

Lots of fallacies in there but I'll make this streamlined: Define murder.

 

[Gevurah]

Lots of fallacies in there but I'll make this streamlined: Define murder.

Ah, look, once someone starts bangin’ on about “fallacies,” they’re already conceding the argument.

If all those supposed fallacies were really a problem, you should be able to logically dismantle them, lad.

Your demand to “define murder” is a diversion from the central point, lad, since the legal definition’s already set in the statutes, so I'm not fallin' for that trap.

I’ll say it again, lad, just ‘cause your “moral argument” makes sense in your own head don’t mean it’s legally or empirically true.

When I went to trial for stabbin' and nearly killing a bloke over a drug debt, it made sense in me own head that I shouldn’t do near a decade inside... but I did.

Nine years… me logic didn’t match universal reality, same as your argument.

That’s it, lad. Nothing more to discuss.

I accept your concession.

If you want to carry on this discussion, you’ll have to do it on your own with another member, ‘cause I’m not getting caught up in your endless excuses and justifications for callin’ your “moral argument” (aka a structured opinion) a fact.

I’m off, mate. Sort it out yourself, I'm done with it.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Ah, look, once someone starts bangin’ on about “fallacies,” they’re already conceding the argument.

If all those supposed fallacies were really a problem, you should be able to logically dismantle them, lad.

Your demand to “define murder” is a diversion from the central point, lad, since the legal definition’s already set in the statutes, so I'm not fallin' for that trap.

I’ll say it again, lad, just ‘cause your “moral argument” makes sense in your own head don’t mean it’s legally or empirically true.

When I went to trial for stabbin' and nearly killing a bloke over a drug debt, it made sense in me own head that I shouldn’t do near a decade inside... but I did.

Nine years… me logic didn’t match universal reality, same as your argument.

That’s it, lad. Nothing more to discuss.

I accept your concession.

If you want to carry on this discussion, you’ll have to do it on your own with another member, ‘cause I’m not getting caught up in your endless excuses and justifications for callin’ your “moral argument” (aka a structured opinion) a fact.

I’m off, mate. Sort it out yourself, I'm done with it.

I can logically dismantle it, and I have done that many times on this forum. But that process would be a fallacy in itself (because it's more diverting and ineffective than an argument with defined terms and conditions) and often comes across as aggressive/pretentious.

But if you don't want to continue this "debate", you are free to leave.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Maybe, @K.I.T.T. would like to debate?...

 

[K.I.T.T.]

Maybe, @K.I.T.T. would like to debate?...

Don't get me involved in this nonsense, debates are usually pointless. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and everyone else is entitled to believe what they believe.

Here's something to consider: Let people live their own lives they way they want. If you don't like the way people live their lives, keep it to yourself. Besides, you're a sock and your opinion here is unwanted.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

Don't get me involved in this nonsense, debates are usually pointless. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and everyone else is entitled to believe what they believe.

Debates are not useless at all. Debates shape the moral values and ethics of society, influence politics, can ignite revolutions and what not.

Entitlement to a belief doesn’t make you right or invincible to philosophical critique. Plus, mine isn't an opinion, yours is.

Here's something to consider: Let people live their own lives they way they want. If you don't like the way people live their lives, keep it to yourself. Besides, you're a sock and your opinion here is unwanted.

They can live however they want to be – I'm not forcing anyone. I am not targeting people's lives but certain existing moral structures and legal contradictions.
And you never won the sock debate, anyway.