RIP: Charlie Kirk Assassinated at Event in Utah

[acptulsa]

In spite of whatever nonsense @acptulsa wants to throw my way, (I guess he's looking for a new swordsmyth to bash), I have questions as well.

But there is difference between asking questions and carefully weighing the answers, and simply throwing whatever shit you can lay your hands on and seeing what sticks.

See, this is precisely what I am talking about.

Anybody who knows anything about ballistics would know that a projectile fired from such a gun would not have the downrange energy to do the soft tissue damage that we all saw, in real time, to Charlie Kirk's neck.

I'm not sure that's true, or even what difference it makes. I don't see anyone firing a palm gun from 147 yards. There isn't a vantage point off to Kirk's right (which is where many believe the shot must really have come from) that far away. Therefore you can't even define the range you're talking about. You're either missing or deflecting from the point, which isn't that someone could have used a palm gun from a roof, but that they might have gotten away with using one from much closer, in the crowd.

Not that I care. I have no vested interest in that or any other alternative theory. I have not posted one thing about a palm gun. But I am posting this. Are you looking at the official narrative with a critical eye, or are you saying, a leftist killed a rightie and I don't want to be confused with facts because I'm invested in that narrative?



The official narrative is a joke. We are not done, not poking holes into it, but pointing out the holes that are baked into it.
Bullshit like that may satisfy you under the circumstances...

There is no need for ten thousand multifaceted, 24 layer conspiracy theories to explain this.

Not when you have the governor of California and scores just like him, whipping up the Marxists into a homicidal rage on a daily basis.

When they say they want you dead, believe them when they say it.

...but it does nothing to satisfy me. And no, Swordsmyth (God rest him) has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Doing things because of personalities, or teams and their preferred narratives, is your style, not mine. I want the truth to come out. I'll be satisfied with the truth, no matter how appalling, and not satisfied with anything else, no matter how appealing.

 

[acptulsa]

His narrative powers have improved in the last three years.

 

[Snowball]

Make sure to post it when its done.

This will reveal the agenda. If she tries to wipe it away, we know she's compromised.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

See, this is precisely what I am talking about.

Anybody who knows anything about ballistics would know that a projectile fired from such a gun would not have the downrange energy to do the soft tissue damage that we all saw, in real time, to Charlie Kirk's neck.

Whatever shot Kirk, it was not a palm gun or cel phone derringer or PU 235 Explosive Space Modulator.

It was a relatively high power rifle round of .30 caliber or greater.

Come on AF, you are too skeptical. It was 4 simultaneous shooters, so it only seemed like a single shot. Very tight coordination. Hard to say, where all of the rounds went, but it is possible that Charlie was hit by more than one.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Therefore you can't even define the range you're talking about. You're either missing or deflecting from the point, which isn't that someone could have used a palm gun from a roof, but that they might have gotten away with using one from much closer, in the crowd.

No, that is exactly what I am trying to make clear.

At point blank range, less than a foot away, a round from such a gun would not do the damage, it would not "shock" the human body, the way in which Kirk's was.

Not that I care. I have no vested interest in that or any other alternative theory. I have not posted one thing about a palm gun. But I am posting this. Are you looking at the official narrative with a critical eye, or are you saying, a leftist killed a rightie and I don't want to be confused with facts because I'm invested in that narrative?

I didn't say that you, specifically, mentioned that theory.

I just happened to have seen it posted and used it to make my larger point.

I am looking at any narrative from government with a critical eye, always have, while at the same time being fully cognizant that the Marxist left have whipped up a Bolshevik army of Queer Race Communists, who say they will kill us, have killed us, are happy that we have been killed, and will kill us again. And, to be clear, by "us" I mean anybody to the "right" of Chairman Mao.

Speaking of Chairman Mao, Lily Tang Williams, running for office here in NH, grew up in China under Mao's communist revolution, I just saw her speak about that in person, last week, and the parallels to today's America are stunning.

That's the coming dictator everybody should be concerned about.

Not a Fourth Reich, not another Il Duce, nor even an Augusto Pinochet.

...but it does nothing to satisfy me. And no, Swordsmyth (God rest him) has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Doing things because of personalities, or teams and their preferred narratives, is your style, not mine. I want the truth to come out. I'll be satisfied with the truth, no matter how appalling, and not satisfied with anything else, no matter how appealing.

Are you honestly going to say that you did not have a horn out for Sword, personally?

Really?

Regardless, what if my version of events turn out to be the truth?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[TheCount]

Only believing the things that you want to hear is hardly a trait exclusive to the left.

 

[acptulsa]

That's the coming dictator everybody should be concerned about.

Not a Fourth Reich, not another Il Duce, nor even an Augusto Pinochet.

Lily Tang Williams or Mao Tse Tung?

Are you honestly going to say that you did not have a horn out for Sword, personally?

In my opinion he posted a lot of b.s. Sometimes he insulted me. Other times he posted interesting, seemingly accurate content. Other times he was civil. I did my best to react to what was in front of me, just as I do with you or anyone else.

I've also seen palm guns in calibers like .41 and .45, but whatever. Like I said, I don't have a dog in that fight.

Anything else is another matter. I have no patience at all with bots. But I never believed Swordsmith to be one of those, even though I called him one now and then when I thought he was being particularly obsessive.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Only believing the things that you want to hear is hardly a trait exclusive to the left.

Except for the fact that the left in America controls pretty much all of the MSM, including the alternative neoconservative left on Fox.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lily Tang Williams or Mao Tse Tung?

LOL, Chairman Mao.

In my opinion he posted a lot of b.s. Sometimes he insulted me. Other times he posted interesting, seemingly accurate content. Other times he was civil. I did my best to react to what was in front of me, just as I do with you or anyone else.

I've also seen palm guns in calibers like .41 and .45, but whatever. Like I said, I don't have a dog in that fight.

Anything else is another matter. I have no patience at all with bots. But I never believed Swordsmith to be one of those, even though I called him one now and then when I thought he was being particularly obsessive.

Well, we'll just have to see how this plays out.

One of the local churches had a very nice prayer vigil for Kirk today that I attended, keeping in mind I was never a huge follower or fan or supporter.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Except for the fact that the left in America controls pretty much all of the MSM, including the alternative neoconservative left on Fox.

Exactly.

 

[TheCount]

Except for the fact that the left in America controls pretty much all of the MSM, including the alternative neoconservative left on Fox.

Sounds legit.

 

[acptulsa]

Sounds legit.

Well, you have to admit that a huge chunk of the mainstream and "alternative" media is controlled by wealthy interests. And you have to admit that those same wealthy interests can afford to rent large numbers of politicians, and don't seem to mind doing it. And you have to admit that those same politicians aren't being paid right now not to exercise government's muscle.

So, yeah. Most media is down with government action. In other words, left.

In this case, "left" includes Donald Trump. But I can't help that.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Well, you have to admit that a huge chunk of the mainstream and "alternative" media is controlled by wealthy interests. And you have to admit that those same wealthy interests can afford to rent large numbers of politicians, and don't seem to mind doing it. And you have to admit that those same politicians aren't being paid right now not to exercise government's muscle.

So, yeah. Most media is down with government action. In other words, left.

In this case, "left" includes Donald Trump. But I can't help that.

I believe both the Right and the Left lead to the same end: more government control and less individual freedom. The Left does it openly — they legislate surveillance, censorship, and centralized authority in the name of progress or safety, without apology. The Right, on the other hand, pretends to resist. They speak of freedom and small government, but when a crisis hits — a terror attack, a mass shooting, civil unrest — they’re the first to push for new laws and restrictions.


The result is the same either way. The Left uses ideology to justify control, while the Right lets people demand it. Once in power, neither side repeals what the other put in place. They only build on it. Over time, the system grows more powerful, and freedom becomes a memory. The people think they're choosing sides, but really, they’re being led — not governed — by a machine that feeds on fear, division, and obedience.

 

[nikcers]

Well, you have to admit that a huge chunk of the mainstream and "alternative" media is controlled by wealthy interests.

Most media nowadays is controlled by people's interests.

The days of the powerful interest groups maintaining full control over it are dead.

Sure they can buy the popular media programs off and have them promote stuff they want to but if people dont like it or want it they can tune out.

Just look at the ratings of the networks that used to have so much power in our system they dont get any ratings anymore.

They tried putting it into the movies and all the big movies started to flop too.

 

[acptulsa]

Most media nowadays is controlled by people's interests.

Oh, look. It's back to doing comedy.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No, that is exactly what I am trying to make clear.

At point blank range, less than a foot away, a round from such a gun would not do the damage, it would not "shock" the human body, the way in which Kirk's was.

Another angle of the supposed palm gun shooter. He was in the front row. But after the shot, the hand that is supposed to have the gun in it reaches down and grabs the railing, which would be hard to do with that gun still in his hand.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[nikcers]

Oh, look. It's back to doing comedy.

There's always consumer demand when it comes to media that plays a major role. People dont just watch whatever is on the TV anymore and nowadays algorithms know what you like and try to give it to you so they can keep your attention and you don't tune out.

We are long passed the days when there were only a few channels and every American watches the same thing.

Just look at all the people who didnt even know who Charlie Kirk was because they don't watch the same things kids are watching nowadays.