RE: Tested Boundaries
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Yes, I saw a few fragments. I am torn on the idea of father turning in his son. Maybe he was too. On one side, maybe he already failed as a parent if his son learned how to shoot quite well and have access to serious weapons, and he didn't see him possibly turning into an executioner. On the other side, a son is a son, and family is family. Maybe not what it used to be, but still, if family means as much to him as it probably should, this decision will likely give him nightmares for life.
This assassinate will be remembered for a while... Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last. Gun control probably wouldn't solve this, since an individual who really wants access to a weapon can get it from the black market (or perhaps even build it nowadays?). Fewer would, that's true, but I think it has something to do with the American culture (and not only), where (in this case) some individuals think they can erase an idea by physically removing the one(s) propagating it. They achieve the opposite, if it isn't covered up (and sometimes even if it is, years later). It's been tested throughout history, and that's the effect. Sure, maybe Charlie Kirk is raised to a higher level than he deserved in life, due to his death, but the shooter achieved that.
???
Would you like to expand on this, so there is no misunderstanding of your intent in writing it?
That usually happens when people die, especially in tragic and emotional circumstances... All humans have flaws, and personally, I don't like any kind of radicalism (in any direction), although sometimes is probably needed. He was a guy defending his cause, with a good (even great) visibility and good arguments. He was also a polarizing person, because the other side would not have seen him with good eyes, for sure. I don't know if it's been determined why he was shot, but the fact that political assassination was among the top reasons why he could have been shot at the speculative level, right from the start, says a lot about how the other side saw him.
Okay. Thanks. Your word "deserved" stood out since, as I sure you are aware, many are publicly stating he got what was coming to him. He "deserved" to be killed.
From what you have now said, will not clearly stated, I will assume (hope) that does not include you.
Definitely not! It's like "shooting" the freedom of speech.
Exactly! Underscoring the fact, in spite of all the "useful idiots" once again screaming about the Americans "love affair" with guns, etc. this was an attack on our First Amendment freedom of expression. Not on our Second Amendment right to bear arms ...