At least make a funny joke if you’re going to mock murder victims. “LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS BLOOD” is not an attempt at dark humor, it’s just enjoying death and violence.
Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.
Nobody would be “celebrating” him if people didn’t try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.
Lol. That was good but you need to double down on the irony at the end or else people might think you’re serious. Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.
Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.
Very true.
Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he’s racist. That’s why he shot a couple white people.
We’d mostly have a different views if he weren’t openly advocating for school shootings. He was literally framing them as a good thing. He was shock and awe, and drawing followers. It’s not all jokes, people are happy he’s dead and rightfully so imo.
When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn’t make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.
Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.
I’ve had enough of you. I encourage everyone here to just block you.
I see the real reason you guys hated Kirk so much. You seem very uncomfortable confronting differing opinions. That’s not politically healthy.
Stop using that tired false equivalence. The purpose of cars isn’t to kill. The purpose of pools isn’t to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill.
So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.
What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they’re disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?
Questioner: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
Charlie: “Counting or not counting gang violence”
Charlie then gets shot in the neck.
His literal last moment is him deflecting the question to a right wing dog whistle
How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?
The definition of “mass shooting” varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don’t care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.
if you don’t see the irony in the circumstances of his death, you may be stupid
It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the “price worth paying” for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would’ve only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?
Absolutely. Yes.
Nothing I’ve seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.
It’s ironic whether or not he actually stands behind the words that he said
Using what definition of irony?
A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.
Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you’d expect him to die.
