17 minutes ago, ericthai said:

I think it's way too simple to say guns are the only problem. If that were true, every place with strict gun laws would be crime free and they're not.

We need to go after violent criminals, gangs, repeat offenders and illegal guns. Taking guns away from law abiding people isn't going to magically fix everything.

Now you're being disingenuous, hopefully not intentionally.

Ain't nobody saying "every place with strict gun laws would be crime free". E.g., Australia. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia took guns away from pretty much everyone save LE. Result according the UN Office of Drugs and Crime:

Firearm deaths per 100,000 in 2020:

Australia 0.078

USA 4.054

Is Australia "crime free"? No, but with strict gun laws it's 50 times safer than the US.

"Taking guns away from law abiding people isn't going to magically fix everything." That tired argument that only bad guys will have guns and good guys baseball bats. No, take away/buy back guns from everyone. And, by golly, if you're caught with one, don't matter none if you've fired it, you're going away for a long time.

Try it. Repeal the Second. Thank me later.

20 hours ago, Autocan said:

I never said he was "looking for confrontations". He was an influencer, plain and simple, with an extreme rightwing ideology. He went to debates to bring young impressionable people to his POV. And he was successful. By all accounts he made a ton of money and helped put Trump in the WH. Good for him. Free country.

But to imply that he went into debates with an open mind is a tad disingenuous - there's zero instance of him on tape saying to a college student, Gee, you're right. Never occurred to me. I'll have to rethink this.

Otherwise, I am with you.

I don't think Charlie showed up expecting to change his own mind.

He showed up to challenge ideas he believed were wrong.

And honestly, I watched a lot of his videos. My impression was that many of the students couldn't clearly explain or defend the positions they were arguing. A lot of them repeated slogans or things they'd heard in class or on social media, but when Charlie asked any questions they struggled to answer.

That's one of the reasons I think he was successful. He wasn't debating professors or policy experts he was debating students who were still figuring out what they believed.

You may disagree with his politics but he got a lot of young people to think about why they believed what they believed and I don't see anything wrong with that.

20 hours ago, Autocan said:

Now you're being disingenuous, hopefully not intentionally.

Ain't nobody saying "every place with strict gun laws would be crime free". E.g., Australia. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia took guns away from pretty much everyone save LE. Result according the UN Office of Drugs and Crime:

Firearm deaths per 100,000 in 2020:

Australia 0.078

USA 4.054

Is Australia "crime free"? No, but with strict gun laws it's 50 times safer than the US.

"Taking guns away from law abiding people isn't going to magically fix everything." That tired argument that only bad guys will have guns and good guys baseball bats. No, take away/buy back guns from everyone. And, by golly, if you're caught with one, don't matter none if you've fired it, you're going away for a long time.

Try it. Repeal the Second. Thank me later.

I think you're making it sound a lot easier than it really is.

Passing another law isn't going to make criminals suddenly start following the law. They already ignore laws against murder, robbery, drugs and illegal gun possession. Why would they suddenly obey a gun ban?

The U.S. already has hundreds of millions of guns out there. You're not going to make them disappear overnight.

If guns were banned tomorrow, who would turn them in? Mostly the people who already follow the law.

The gang members, drug dealers and violent criminals aren't going to line up to hand over their guns.

I'm all for going after criminals with illegal guns and giving them stiff penalties. But I don't believe taking guns away from law abiding people is going to fix the problem.

3 minutes ago, ericthai said:

I don't think Charlie showed up expecting to change his own mind.

He showed up to challenge ideas he believed were wrong.

And honestly, I watched a lot of his videos. My impression was that many of the students couldn't clearly explain or defend the positions they were arguing. A lot of them repeated slogans or things they'd heard in class or on social media, but when Charlie asked any questions they struggled to answer.

That's one of the reasons I think he was successful. He wasn't debating professors or policy experts he was debating students who were still figuring out what they believed.

You may disagree with his politics but he got a lot of young people to think about why they believed what they believed and I don't see anything wrong with that.

3 minutes ago, ericthai said:

You may disagree with his politics but he got a lot of young people to think about why they believed what they believed and I don't see anything wrong with that

Well said.

Kirk was a brilliant entrepreneur of ideas who built a powerful counter institution for the American right, much as the left had long dominated and ideologically shaped academia in colleges & universities .

Kirk recognized that academia had become the left’s primary grab for cultural and political ideas. Rather than just complaining about it, he built Turning Point USA organizing students, created alternative spaces, and introducing conservative principles directly onto campuses where they had been intimidated & put down .

He was murdered in cold blood on the very turf he spent his life contesting for America.

42 minutes ago, ericthai said:

I don't think Charlie showed up expecting to change his own mind.

He showed up to challenge ideas he believed were wrong.

And honestly, I watched a lot of his videos. My impression was that many of the students couldn't clearly explain or defend the positions they were arguing. A lot of them repeated slogans or things they'd heard in class or on social media, but when Charlie asked any questions they struggled to answer.

That's one of the reasons I think he was successful. He wasn't debating professors or policy experts he was debating students who were still figuring out what they believed.

You may disagree with his politics but he got a lot of young people to think about why they believed what they believed and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Forget Charlie. He lost his debate with a bullet. Let's talk up and coming influencers.

On the left we have Mehdi now doing the college circuit. Mehdi's smart but lacks kerb appeal. I would prefer either Anna Kasparian or Emma Vigeland, preferably Emma. Anna's super sharp but gets emotional. Not so Emma who's smart as a whip and doesn't take hostages, says what she thinks.

But then why would they leave their comfortable well-paying gigs podcasting and venture into the wild? In any case, you tell me who's appealing on the right. Because I go looking for the right's POV and end up dialing up stinkers like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin and Laura Loomer, pinging me right back to Family Guy clips.

Tucker Carlson? Good when he's good but tends to go off the rail with kooky theories. Nick Fuentes? Hmm, an acquired taste. But please you tell me.

4 minutes ago, Autocan said:

Forget Charlie. He lost his debate with a bullet.

Is this the only way the left can win a debate?

8 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Is this the only way the left can win a debate?

If you see my posts in this thread, I make a case for repealing the Second and comprehensive disarming of US citizens.

In which case Tyler Robinson would have been forced to charge the stage with a large knife, slashing several students in the way and succeeding only in lopping off Charlie left ear, which would have been stitched back at the Orem Community Hospital later that afternoon.

3 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Is this the only way the left can win a debate?

There’s unfinished business, my friend. It’s in that courtroom, and it’s with the delusional farleft extremists celebrating this heinous act. Those who follow that path of evil usually end up spending the rest of their lives entirely alone, thinking about it in a small space put aside specifically for them.

Whats taking so long? Twiggs the roommate of Robinson, evidence is indisputable.

"According to court documents filed by authorities last September, Robinson admitted in a text message with Twiggs on the day of the shooting that he had committed the crime".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-kirk-suspect-roommate-immunity-recorded-statements/

On 7/7/2026 at 8:22 PM, MIke B Bad said:

There's only one reason for her to be there........crying and storming out.......publicity...........It has beed drying up for months now.....and the only bad publicity is no publicity.

You don't think it might have had something to do with her husband being murdered and being in the same room as the alleged murderer?

22 hours ago, Autocan said:

Sorry to say you sound a nattering nabob of negativism (thanks William Safire).

Try it. Other have and they ain't complaining.

Negativism...no it's called reality. We have laws on guns already but people still break those laws.

We have laws on murder but people still kill. Making laws doesn't magickly make something stop or disappear.

3 hours ago, emptypockets said:

You don't think it might have had something to do with her husband being murdered and being in the same room as the alleged murderer?

I'm shocked that some of these posters have no sympathy for a woman who witnessed her husband's murder.

Like I said before whats taking so long?

According to his Mom, Young Robinson went "Highly political".

What are the characteristics of highly political people,they generally eat ,sleep politics .

He confessed to his roomie that he was responsible for Kirks death.

"Robinson turned himself in after the shooting. Prosecutors allege that he also sent a text message confession to his partner and left a note saying he had an opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices “and I’m going to take it".

https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-tyler-robinson-preliminary-hearing-91606ff42da6695c4fd482bc3c459493#:~:text=Robinson%20turned%20himself%20in%20after%20the%20shooting.,crowd%20of%20thousands%20at%20Utah%20Valley%20University.

Whats taking so long, He henously admits killing Kirk in so many ways.

"The defendant in Charlie Kirk’s killing told his roommate “he wishes he hadn’t done it” the day after the conservative activist was shot in the neck while speaking to a crowd at Utah Valley University, a recording played in court revealed"

On 7/8/2026 at 9:51 PM, Autocan said:

If you see my posts in this thread, I make a case for repealing the Second and comprehensive disarming of US citizens.

In which case Tyler Robinson would have been forced to charge the stage with a large knife, slashing several students in the way and succeeding only in lopping off Charlie left ear, which would have been stitched back at the Orem Community Hospital later that afternoon.

Not realizing that the majority of gun owners are legal and not causing any problem. Also, you take away hunter's guns, which will never happen anyway, the deer population would soar through the roof, with thousands and not hundreds of human deaths yearly, by road accidents and attacks from deer becoming more tame.

This along with feral hogs tearing up millions of more acres of land wildlife and other animals use, along with predators increasing, like coyotes, who will then target more domestic animals and poultry.

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Not realizing that the majority of gun owners are legal and not causing any problem. Also, you take away hunter's guns, which will never happen anyway, the deer population would soar through the roof, with thousands and not hundreds of human deaths yearly, by road accidents and attacks from deer becoming more tame.

This along with feral hogs tearing up millions of more acres of land wildlife and other animals use, along with predators increasing, like coyotes, who will then target more domestic animals and poultry.

The headline is about an emotional, high profile court case involving an alleged assassination and a widow's pain. A direct, on topic comment would typically discuss the trial, the suspect’s behavior, the victim, or the legal proceedings.

Instead, this comment jumps several steps ahead into a deep policy debate about gun control, hunting, and wildlife management.

Whats taking so long ? Whats going on is the defense trying to get out of what Utah prosecutors want...?

On 7/7/2026 at 6:26 PM, bunnydrops said:

He was a registered voter from a Republican voting family who was not affiliated with either party and hadn't voted in years. Being anti-Nazi does not make him a progressive. Maybe the trial will shine some light on how he came to believe in his mind that shooting Kirk was the right thing to do.

If he's laughing at a life sentence or death penalty, he must have a screw loose! I have avoided looking up Kirk's politics because, honestly, who cares. He's some kind self-appointed Xian conservative preach is all I know. Xian Zionist?

This left-right nonsense is just simplistic for those who don't really know how to express themselves. What would lead one to believe the shooter was "left" (behind). I understand they didn't catch him at the scene and the murder weapon was not recovered?

I am proudly antifa, antiwar, anti-ICE, pro-Immigration, pro-Palestine. You should delineate things you believe people to be just black/white.

6 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

If he's laughing at a life sentence or death penalty, he must have a screw loose! I have avoided looking up Kirk's politics because, honestly, who cares. He's some kind self-appointed Xian conservative preach is all I know. Xian Zionist?

This left-right nonsense is just simplistic for those who don't really know how to express themselves. What would lead one to believe the shooter was "left" (behind). I understand they didn't catch him at the scene and the murder weapon was not recovered?

I am proudly antifa, antiwar, anti-ICE, pro-Immigration, pro-Palestine. You should delineate things you believe people to be just black/white.

I put Robinson and David DePape, the man who broke into Nancy Pelosi's house with the intention of breaking her kneecaps, but ended up attacking her husband with a hammer because she wasn't home, in the same boat. They were both "nobodies" that some want to use to spread their distorted views of those they don't agree with.

55 minutes ago, riclag said:

The headline is about an emotional, high profile court case involving an alleged assassination and a widow's pain. A direct, on topic comment would typically discuss the trial, the suspect’s behavior, the victim, or the legal proceedings.

Instead, this comment jumps several steps ahead into a deep policy debate about gun control, hunting, and wildlife management.

Was just answering another. All topics go sideways a little. As far as this one, I think others were involved and Robinson was, is a patsy. We may never know, but if he gets off without enough evidence, that will surely point it elsewhere.

Bickering posts removed.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Was just answering another. All topics go sideways a little. As far as this one, I think others were involved and Robinson was, is a patsy. We may never know, but if he gets off without enough evidence, that will surely point it elsewhere.

The evidence doesn't point to others involved accept the Discord chat sessions. Other than that its conspiracy nonsense

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I am proudly antifa, antiwar, anti-ICE, pro-Immigration, pro-Palestine. You should delineate things you believe people to be just black/white.

I'm also a very proud member of ANTIFA. My favorite pastime is stopping little old ladies from crossing the street and beating up Hispanic Marines while declaring them white supremacists.

14 minutes ago, riclag said:

The evidence doesn't point to others involved accept the Discord chat sessions. Other than that its conspiracy nonsense

Guess we'll see. But like many things political, coverups happen.

I think it was Mossad....

Regards Worgeordie

10 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

I'm also a very proud member of ANTIFA. My favorite pastime is stopping little old ladies from crossing the street and beating up Hispanic Marines while declaring them white supremacists.

We're clearly talking about two different things here. I'm sticking to the actual court facts,Mom said he was highly political.

1 hour ago, bunnydrops said:

I put Robinson and David DePape, the man who broke into Nancy Pelosi's house with the intention of breaking her kneecaps, but ended up attacking her husband with a hammer because she wasn't home, in the same boat. They were both "nobodies" that some want to use to spread their distorted views of those they don't agree with.

depape was mentally ill. robinson is a political assassin

23 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I think it was Mossad....

Regards Worgeordie

you would lol.

Whats taking so long?

Interesting , the judge taking extraordinary steps to not be subjected to the appeals process criticism if & when...

Judges are interfering with process of Tyler Robinson case

11 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I am proudly antifa, antiwar, anti-ICE, pro-Immigration, pro-Palestine. You should delineate things you believe people to be just black/white

ie an enemy of the usa

She is a grifter and always will be a grifter. So sorry for her losing her husband and I think we can all speak to that. She needs to stay out of the politics and she needs to quite giving out stupid advice to women on how to run their lives. Go home Erika and stay home, just like you preached to all the other women that attend your Turning Pt. USA gatherings.