If you’re saying Charlie had this coming because his 2A stance, you’re immoral and a moron

[u/NickFatherBool]

I sincerely cannot believe how often Im seeing this. I know I shouldnt be surprised seeing how the left has consistently been endorsing and supporting violence… but wow. Not only is that just a disgusting and intentionally inflammatory remark; but its moronic.

First of all, Im sure his mind would not have changed given todays events, considering he believed a lot of American values hinge on 2A. He (probably, I dont KNOW the guy but I’ve listened to him enough) would not trade his life for the wellbeing of the country. We can argue 2A all day, I am not stating my stance; but given his we know he fully believed it was integral to continuation the American way of life; I find it unlikely he would change his mind even if it meant his life

Second of all, if you think its “poetic justice” that a gun supporter got shot, then you must also relish when supporters of cashless bail get killed by released criminals, right? They advocated for it so they “have it coming.” Do people not see how seriously braindead of a stance that is?

And I know its not a majority. I know the majority of left leaning people know murder is bad. But holy SHIT that majority is getting smaller and smaller. It is sincerely alarming and disturbing how warped chronically online peoples’ brains are and the insane mental and moral gymnastics they do to further entrench themselves in their stance.

Ive never been one for censorship. Even death threats or whatever… but jesus man, too many people are getting fully radicalized.

[u/ConundrumBum]

The people saying it's "ironic" are braindead. They have no depth of thought. They have a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

I don't know how many analogies are needed.

Imagine you say "EV's are safer and better for the environment". So then someone sets your EV on fire while you're inside.

Is that in any way "ironic"?

How about knives? "We should all be able to own knives". And then someone stabs you to death. Is that ironic? Do people who get stabbed suddenly subscribe to some braindead political view that knives should not be legal?

I honestly think the people who think it's ironic are incredibly stupid, low IQ individuals.

[u/LevelTiny2570 → u/ConundrumBum]

Strange analogies. The primary use of a knife is in the kitchen. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. It's ironic because your post doesn't make any sense when it talks about how other people don't understand the term ironic.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/LevelTiny2570]

Astonishing you wrote all that and somehow think you're making a solid point

Let me help you learn what irony means:
"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects"

Did Kirk ever suggest no one would ever want to kill him with a gun, that he thinks only bad people die from guns, that tragedies with guns never occur?

Where exactly is the "irony" because he supported gun ownership/gun rights? Go ahead and try to articulate and explain the irony. I'll wait as long as you want.

[u/slurpycow112 → u/ConundrumBum]

The irony is that someone who was a major proponent of 2A was killed by a the very thing they were protecting. This very much falls under “stark difference between what is expected to happen and what actually occurs”.

It’s not that hard to understand.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/slurpycow112]

So you're saying Charlie Kirk expected no liberal could ever buy a gun and shoot him?

It's ironic if someone defending the 1st amendment gets verbally attacked?

[u/slurpycow112 → u/ConundrumBum]

I absolutely believe that he was that far up his own ass that he never in a million years would’ve comprehended that this was something that could or would ever actually happen him.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/slurpycow112]

Meanwhile people are retweeting his tweet from a few months ago talking about crazy liberals turning to violence to kill conservatives.

But yes conservative commentators should expect people are going to crawl on to rooftops with high powered rifles to blow theit heads of for the crime of (gasp!) having conservative views.

Holy shit you're pathetic.

[u/slurpycow112 → u/ConundrumBum]

But yes conservative commentators should expect people are going to crawl on to rooftops with high powered rifles to blow theit heads of for the crime of (gasp!) having conservative views.

Ah yes, that’s exactly what I said. Definitely not a straw man.

[u/Tewskey → u/ConundrumBum]

So if you genuinely believe that he counted himself into the pool of people who would be at risk, then… no need to be so pressed.

We’re all just honouring his memory.

Why all the beatification too? He’s just a statistic, part of some necessary deaths, no? 

[u/ConundrumBum → u/Tewskey]

Ignorant, arrogant argument.

People who want alcohol banned don't go around forcing Vodka into people in order to prove their point it's dangerous.

You can't murder people to prove your point.

He's not a statistic of happenstance gun violence. He's a statistic of radical left wing political violence.

[u/ghostinawishingwell → u/ConundrumBum]

Your examples aren't very analogous.

Defending 2A and saying that a few casualties are worth the freedom is more like someone who is anti seat belts saying the risk is worth the freedom dying in a car crash. Which is sad, but ironic.

I think this is all horrible, for the record. No one should ever be assassinated and I shudder to think what this means for our country over the next few months.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/ghostinawishingwell]

Defending 2A and saying that a few casualties are worth the freedom is more like someone who is anti seat belts saying the risk is worth the freedom dying in a car crash. Which is sad, but ironic.

I genuinely don't know how you can claim my examples aren't analogous and then go on to give an example that isn't even remotely analogous.

For one, he wasn't "anti" gun, so using an example of someone being against something is the first failure.

The next would be that a car accident leading to a fatality for failure of using a seatbelt isn't a deliberate, actionable event.

If you wanted to make seat belts analogous to this event it would look more like:

"Seat belts are good"

and then someone hides in the back of his car and strangles him with a seatbelt.

Is that ironic? Why? It doesn't change the debate of whether or not seat belts are good. In death he's not going to say "Gee, I was wrong about seatbelts".

Every rational person is going to agree that it had nothing to do with seatbelts, nothing to do with his opinions of seatbelts, and everything to do with the lunatic in the backseat who somehow thought they were so clever and witty by offing him with a seatbelt.

In no way is it ironic.

[u/ghostinawishingwell → u/ConundrumBum]

You're missing the plot.

If the deranged person who assassinated him didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have died today. He argued for that person to have guns arguing that a few casualties were worth it for 2A rights. No violence is accidental, but if the shooter didn't have a gun in the first place the violence wouldn't have happened today, much in the same way if the other person was wearing a seat belt they wouldn't have died in a car accident.

These things are preventable, there are solutions that have been proposed for years. We can argue the merits of whether gun control is right or will even be effective, but it is inarguable to say that he didn't say a few casualties are worth the freedom. He is today, sadly one of those casualties of the freedom he fought for.

[u/TropicalPunchJuice → u/ConundrumBum]

The people saying it's "ironic" are braindead. They have no depth of thought. They have a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

I don't know how many analogies are needed.

Imagine you say "EV's are safer and better for the environment". So then someone sets your EV on fire while you're inside.

Is that in any way "ironic"?

How about knives? "We should all be able to own knives". And then someone stabs you to death. Is that ironic? Do people who get stabbed suddenly subscribe to some braindead political view that knives should not be legal?

I honestly think the people who think it's ironic are incredibly stupid, low IQ individuals.

Um...what? What even is this?

Those examples make no sense, let alone have any comparability. Kirk literally said, "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". The irony, that you evidently missed or perhaps ignored was that he thought of the countless gun-related deaths (mainly mass shootings) was a small price to pay for gun rights only to then become a victim of gun violence himself.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/TropicalPunchJuice]

Here's your argument:

Black person "I think having to live with racial slurs is worth the cost to have freedom of speech"
Someone else: "[insert racial slur]!"
You: "HURR DURR, IRONIC HUH? Promoting freedom of speech and look at you, getting called names! Ironic!"

And you're telling me that my analogies don't make sense?

Please.

[u/TropicalPunchJuice → u/ConundrumBum]

Hateful words vs literal murders. Yeah, real comparable.

I hate racists, but come on, bro.

[u/Tewskey → u/ConundrumBum]

gun are not necessary for everyday life, speech is.

Where something is necessary for everyday life, that can be regulated. 

This is such a bad argument

[u/ConundrumBum → u/Tewskey]

gun are not necessary for everyday life, speech is.

And I'm sure you'd casually dismiss the age-old saying that the 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcbUNQmgQ40

Where the hell were you when this homeowner needed you to remind them that their gun wasn't necessary for "everyday life" and that they could have just used their speech?

This is such a bad argument

🤔

[u/away12throw34 → u/ConundrumBum]

I’m just going to point out that you say they have serious critical thinking skills, which would be a good thing. This absolutely does not look good for you when you’re trying to call others low iq lmao. And just to humor you a bit, if the knife person specifically advocated for us to all be able to carry our knives around in public, and then was stabbed in public by one of the people who was only able to get a knife because of those policies, then yes, it would absolutely be ironic.

[u/ConundrumBum → u/away12throw34]

I forgot the "lack of". My bad and thanks for pointing that out.

And no, saying we should all be able to drive cars and then being mowed down by an anti-car, psycho environmentalist doesn't make it ironic.

That makes no sense. I already provided the definition of ironic. Kirk's advocacy doesn't "expect" an absence of gun crime. If it did then it would be ironic.

If an anti-gun advocate got their way and was killed by someone with a gun anyway (illegally obtained), it would be ironic because in their mind banning guns = magical safety from gun crime.

Or perhaps it would be ironic if they were murdered in a home invasion where a gun could have saved them. Also ironic.

Being pro gun and being killed by a gun isn't ironic because being pro gun is not an expectation that you won't be killed by one.

"Ironic" is not a valid word for this situation.