6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The gun was hidden in his pants. See here

 

 

 

Yes there was. The video is grainy and not clear, but there was.

 

 

Watch that video above, it can be done in 35 seconds or less.

 

That's true, which is the reason why he had a towel. Watch the video of him climbing down, there is a long object wrapped in a towel.

 

 

He was the shooter, DNA evidence on the trigger, towel and screwdriver. So he must have known what he was doing.

 

 

 

 

Hahahah your argument is so flawed its not funny. Finding a video of some random guy showing how a gun "could"  be hidden but not matching how difficult it would be to walk upstairs or all the way to the building, (there's video of him coming without a gun) and unassembled and then reassembly proves nothing.  

 

So your suspect walked up the stairs with a fully assembled guy in his pants where he could not bend his knees?  Oh it was disassembled before?  So he assembled it on roof, disassembled it on the way down and then reassembled it and left it in the woods as he exited thru the neighborhood?  

 

You go with what you have if it helps you feel better. The story doesn't match the evidence shown currently without some big leaps of faith in the govt. I'll wait to see proof of all this. 

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Finding a video of some random guy showing how a gun "could"  be hidden but not matching how difficult it would be to walk upstairs or all the way to the building, (there's video of him coming without a gun)

 

If you look at the video you can also see that this rather overweight guy is able to walk with the rifle in his pants. It's not that difficult. Obviously he came without a rifle as he had stashed the gun in a hidden spot where he picked it up after he arived and changed clothes.

 

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

So your suspect walked up the stairs with a fully assembled guy in his pants where he could not bend his knees? 

 

It may have been fully assembled or disassembled, it's not clear. However, the suspect limping clearly indicates he was hiding a rifle nside his trousers. Most likely he had the stock and barrel disasembled, which is easy to do with a Mauser, again demonstrated in the video.

 

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

disassembled it on the way down and then reassembled it and left it in the woods as he exited thru the neighborhood?  

 

No he did not disassemble it on the way down. He just wrapped the rifle in a towel.

 

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

The story doesn't match the evidence shown currently

 

No, it matches it perfectly.

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Thats the first pic I've seen that shows anything of length after the man came off the roof. 

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

Thats the first pic I've seen that shows anything of length after the man came off the roof. 

 

I saw it right away the first time I watched the video. You can also see he's clearly transporting something as he climbs down. He doesn't just climb down in a fluid manne, he's concerned about what  he's carrying.

 

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

I saw it right away the first time I watched the video. You can also see he's clearly transporting something as he climbs down. He doesn't just climb down in a fluid manne, he's concerned about what  he's carrying.

 

 

I never said he didn't have a bag of some sort. I said I never saw a gun or anything of length of that gun going up to the roof or come off the roof with him. 

Just now, Dan O said:

Thats the first pic I've seen that shows anything of length after the man came off the roof. 

 

If you watch the video it is very clear. You can also see it clearly in the video as he is sliding his body off the side of the roof, but that doesn't show as clearly as a still image capture as it does in motion, because of the contrast between the white roof and the trees makes the end of it "disappear".

 

 

It seems the fix is in and the White House is looking at how to limit free speech.

“Businesses cannot discriminate,” attorney-general Pam Bondi said this week after an Office Depot employee reportedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk. “You have to let [the customer] do that,” adding “we can prosecute you” for refusing to do so. Other top officials have made clear that, after last week’s shooting of Kirk, 31, they believe there are limits to free speech. The president set the tone, vowing in a speech just hours after Kirk’s death to pursue the “radical left” people he said were responsible for the attack.

However, many would say that the government has no right to interfere in what companies do under the first amendment.

https://www.ft.com/content/336c171c-f49e-41e5-81c1-9018a6949d2c

 

4 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I never said he didn't have a bag of some sort. I said I never saw a gun or anything of length of that gun going up to the roof or come off the roof with him. 

 

In the video of the post you quote above there is a frame by frame analysis of his climb down, which CLEARLY, I do mean very clearly, shows he had the rifle on his back as he climbed down.

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

In the video of the post you quote above there is a frame by frame analysis of his climb down, which CLEARLY, I do mean very clearly, shows he had the rifle on his back as he climbed down.

 

Yeah I really don't know how anyone couldn't notice it.

 

14 minutes ago, Purdey said:

It seems the fix is in and the White House is looking at how to limit free speech.

“Businesses cannot discriminate,” attorney-general Pam Bondi said this week after an Office Depot employee reportedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk. “You have to let [the customer] do that,” adding “we can prosecute you” for refusing to do so. Other top officials have made clear that, after last week’s shooting of Kirk, 31, they believe there are limits to free speech. The president set the tone, vowing in a speech just hours after Kirk’s death to pursue the “radical left” people he said were responsible for the attack.

However, many would say that the government has no right to interfere in what companies do under the first amendment.

https://www.ft.com/content/336c171c-f49e-41e5-81c1-9018a6949d2c

 

I like her, and it's a shame, but Bondi will likely get the axe. 

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

So you are making things up

It's all he can do. 

 

If he had to tell the truth, the ideology he has spent his life worshiping would revealed for what it is. 

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yeah I really don't know how anyone couldn't notice it.

 

 

Thanks for posting that shot, that's exactly the shot I was referring to above.

Here clear evidence that it is possible to walk up stairs with the gun in the pants:

 

 

30 minutes ago, Purdey said:

It seems the fix is in and the White House is looking at how to limit free speech.

“Businesses cannot discriminate,” attorney-general Pam Bondi said this week after an Office Depot employee reportedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk. “You have to let [the customer] do that,” adding “we can prosecute you” for refusing to do so. Other top officials have made clear that, after last week’s shooting of Kirk, 31, they believe there are limits to free speech. The president set the tone, vowing in a speech just hours after Kirk’s death to pursue the “radical left” people he said were responsible for the attack.

However, many would say that the government has no right to interfere in what companies do under the first amendment.

https://www.ft.com/content/336c171c-f49e-41e5-81c1-9018a6949d2c

 

The left has been howling that hate-speech is not free-speech, and cancelling people for ten years.  All that time, the right has been howling that no, there is no such thing as hate-speech.

 

But the moment the Republican AG agrees that hate-speech is not free-speech, the left starts howling that there is no such thing as hate-speech. 

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is lefty. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Here clear evidence that it is possible to walk up stairs with the gun in the pants:

 

 

The left has no interest in the truth, it never has. The left needs to spin this into a huge conspiracy they can blame on Trump and that turns the alleged killer into a victim. 

 

The ONLY thing the left cares about is demonizing the right, winning the next election, and gaining more and more control. 

 

The same people howling for free-speech today, would have had you fired for saying "all lives matter" a few years ago. 

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

People are getting fired for quoting him verbatim. Free speech is gone in the Trump era. Disagree, disobey, or act independently and you are gone, baby gone. 

 

So, who is the true snowflake? 

Who did you steal that quote from ? Isn't that against the rules  ?

Free speech is alive and well, it also is NOT free. It comes with consequences. In this case, the employers can't abide by what was said. Certainly not when you publicly represent them so ................. you get fired, or whatever level of discipline your employer comes up with.
Thats between your employer and you, these just happen to be made public.

Don't like it ? Too bad

 

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

It seems the fix is in and the White House is looking at how to limit free speech.

“Businesses cannot discriminate,” attorney-general Pam Bondi said this week after an Office Depot employee reportedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk. “You have to let [the customer] do that,” adding “we can prosecute you” for refusing to do so. Other top officials have made clear that, after last week’s shooting of Kirk, 31, they believe there are limits to free speech. The president set the tone, vowing in a speech just hours after Kirk’s death to pursue the “radical left” people he said were responsible for the attack.

However, many would say that the government has no right to interfere in what companies do under the first amendment.

https://www.ft.com/content/336c171c-f49e-41e5-81c1-9018a6949d2c

 

Exaggerate much ?
That has nothing to do with Trump, it was a SC decission about the cake baker that refused to make the queers a cake. They sued, he lost and appealed before the SC. He won.

 

I just heard that have been 64,000 new applications for Turning Point USA high school and collage chapters since the murder. 

Insanity:

 

thinking its wrong for someone to lose their job for what they said; but what they said was Charlie Kirk should lose his life for something he said...

On 9/17/2025 at 11:14 PM, WDSmart said:

I don't think my views are only shared by a "tiny minority." I don't even think it's a minority. I don't believe the majority of US residents think Kirk was NOT an extreme right-wing activist.

Being married (to a woman) and having children have nothing to do with misogyny. For example, you could be that but require your wife to remain in the house to do housework, and only come out accompanied by you. Having children could be considered her "duty." I'm not saying this is the case with Krik, but I'm just responding to your statement above. 

So you dont know anything about her, you just believe what everyone tells you. 

require her to stay in the house and only leave with him???....lol

 

Go look things up...Erika worked and owned her own podcast and also ran a non-profit that she started. 

 

also, Charlie's good friend was Candice Owens who surprisingly is a woman and black (Candice has stated Charlie was like a brother to her), but he's a misogynist and racist. 

12 hours ago, ericthai said:

So you dont know anything about her, you just believe what everyone tells you. 

require her to stay in the house and only leave with him???....lol

 

Go look things up...Erika worked and owned her own podcast and also ran a non-profit that she started. 

 

also, Charlie's good friend was Candice Owens who surprisingly is a woman and black (Candice has stated Charlie was like a brother to her), but he's a misogynist and racist. 

My statements accusing Kirk of misogyny had nothing to do with his wife. I had never heard of Kirk or his wife until he was assassinated. Since then, I've read a lot about him on social media, seen videos of his debates with college students, but the only thing I saw about his wife was a video of her speaking about his death and declaring she would continue his work.  My judgments about Kirk being a misogynist (and a racist and ant-abortion, anti-LBGTQ, anti-trans, and, just today, anti-Islam) have come from social media (mainly Facebook) and CNN,

Yet another hate-filled, "well informed" leftist weighs in on Kirk. 

10 hours ago, WDSmart said:

My statements accusing Kirk of misogyny had nothing to do with his wife. I had never heard of Kirk or his wife until he was assassinated. Since then, I've read a lot about him on social media, seen videos of his debates with college students, but the only thing I saw about his wife was a video of her speaking about his death and declaring she would continue his work.  My judgments about Kirk being a misogynist (and a racist and ant-abortion, anti-LBGTQ, anti-trans, and, just today, anti-Islam) have come from social media (mainly Facebook) and CNN,

ok, so you dont know anything and just parroting others on social media!!

Did you watch his full videos or are you just watching clips people post. 

 

I been watching him for over a year and dont see what you're saying. His good friend is Candice Owens who is a black woman and she considered Charlie to be like a brother, guess what? she worked too, and actually she worked with Charlie for awhile, but he's racist and a misogynist.

 

Anti-Abortion - yes he's against abortion, I believe most people are, as it's killing a baby. 

Anti-LBGTQ - yes he was a deep Christian believer and being gay is considered a sin, he didn't hate people for being gay just didn't support their life style and said they should see themselves other than just being gay as that's a choice not who you are. 

 

Anti-Islam?? Haven't heard that, he didn't agree with the bombings of Iran. 

He also kept asking about the Epstein flies, bet you didn't know that!

.  

I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread to see what the various members said about what the consequences of hateful speech should be 3 long long months ago.

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread to see what the various members said about what the consequences of hateful speech should be 3 long long months ago.

And what did you come up with?

 

It's the left that wants to punish speech they do not approve of; I'm a stick and stones guy. 

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread to see what the various members said about what the consequences of hateful speech should be 3 long long months ago.

JD Vance called on the public to call the employer of anyone who says distasteful things about Charlie Kirk's death and then kept silent when his boss reacted distastefully with disgusting post and comment to Rob Reiner's death. So much hypocrisy with Maga. Hats off to those Republicans that dare call Trump out for his indecent vitriol. . 

 

52 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

JD Vance called on the public to call the employer of anyone who says distasteful things about Charlie Kirk's death and then kept silent when his boss reacted distastefully with disgusting post and comment to Rob Reiner's death. So much hypocrisy with Maga. Hats off to those Republicans that dare call Trump out for his indecent vitriol. . 

 

I support the public exercising their free speech rights calling out people for what they say. I am against the government making laws to do so. 

 

I think Trump commenting on Reiner's death was inappropriate. How am I a hypocrite?

 

On 9/14/2025 at 9:00 AM, Rimmer said:

Loomer warned online that she would make anyone celebrating Kirk’s death

 

   The big difference :

   Celebrating  a death and making humorous comments , like Donald did