It gets worse. Tyler wrote "Notices Bulges OWO What's This?" on the fired shell casing......

I'd say that if you are crossing a road, you need to look both ways to know everything is safe.

If it takes for this to spring this feeling up, I'd say you need to refocus.

I remember a conversation we had a number of years ago, talking about confronting those against your beliefs. We both know it isn't easy, but try.

Good advice for all sides of the debate.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

At least they apparently have the suspect in custody...

I don't want any part of The Troubles that are more likely than ever to descend upon the American people.

But I also think it's too late to stop them. The Left is too blinded by people calling anyone who disagrees with the tiniest bit of hard-left woke orthodoxy Nazis and too willing to consider killing such a person to be a societal good to pull back from the brink, now.

You will see more and more conservaties arming themselves to defend against the woke mob coming for them - and they won't be wrong to do so.

Agreed, alas. I've taken to keeping a 'life preserver' to hand JIC...

https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/11215398/

This is just ridiculous...

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is quoted at the end of the film Tora! Tora! Tora! as having said that. He may or mat not have, but if he didn't, he should have.

Charlie Kirk's assassination may well carry the same significance.

No doubt the right will attempt to weaponize this murder into a backlash against the left.

Violence is a tool that's built into the Left's DNA, and that the right has eschewed for years. When the switch finally gets flipped, the Left will regret ever trying to use it.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Bullshit.

Violent episodes from the left are few and far between. Even the fucking FBI has said that the far right engages in FAR more violence.

https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/12/mehdi_hasan

https://zeteo.com/p/charlie-kirk-ki.....tical-violence

Uh, no. Those numbers are demonstrably fudged. They count all murders from white supremacist prison gangs as right wing violence while ignoring prison murders from left-wing gangs.

And further, do you really think the left-wing mainstream media would cover leftist violence with the same vigor they do right-wing violence? Hardly. The most guaranteed way to have a story drop out of sigh is for it to be discovered that the perpetrator is leftist.

Are right wing prison gangs somehow not right wing?

And I call BS on that.

Left and indepenndent media are FAR more honest in what they report than the right wing media are.

You've been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the left-wing MSM and, likely, left-wing academia (but I repeat myself) that you are blind to the reality of our daily lives.

This is just plainly false.

He’s not worth the time to reply to.

Agreed. Ignorance can be fixed. Willful ignorance cannot.

THAT'S your concern? not people having begun murdering others over mere political opinions?!??? In a democracy no less????

Ah, Demoman. I see that you're one of those cowards who snipes and blocks people. I ndever block anyone.

I was going to say

"Of COURSE I"m against all assassinations by anyone, particularly via guns. That should just go without saying."

And what does the fact that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a leftist with a hunting rifle have to do with it? I asked elsewhere, and I'll ask here: the gun used was a hunting rifle. You know, the kind of firearm that gun grabbers swear up and down won't be banned or restricted or anything else under their fever-dream gun control utopia. What gun control measure would have stopped this assassination?

The central fact here is not that a gun was used. It's that a leftist killed a conservative because he didn't ike what he had to say, politically. It's really that simple.

We STILL don't knoe the full story of his political beliefs.

And let's just say that he IS a rabid left winger. That still doesn't change the fact that the righy is obviously far more violent than the left is.

You go right on believing that.

And you didn't answer my question. What gun control measure would have stopped this assassintion?

I don't recall your ever having asked me that question.

Right here, the fourth message up from this one.

Musta missed that.

But what does that prove but the obvious fact that this murderer should never have had access to a gun?

I also believe that completely banning guns isn't a realistic idea in the US, unfortunatey. There are just far too many of them at this point.

Too bad, too, because it would save lives.

So no, I'm not for the banning of guns. I'm simply for sensible gun control and restrictions, something that around 80% of Americans are for, including gun owners.

Gun restrictions are clearly proven to save lives.

Define "sensible gun control". That 80% number drops once you drop the fuzzy, feel-good nomenclature (along with its dishonest brother, "common-sense gun control"), and start talking about actual, specific policies.

That's more detail than I'm interested in getting into here. It would take too long and end up just being a waste of my time.

How about just assuming for a start that I'm for every form of gun control that you've heard of shy of them being completely banned, though that's probably not actually true? -feel free to ask more specifically what I'm for and against.

The real answer is that -no- amount of gun control is sensible.

My opinion is starting to go from 'Second Amendment Absolutist' to 'People wouldn't commit senseless acts of violence if they knew they would be turned into Swiss cheese by armed bystanders the second they tried anything.'

And how, exactly, would you have stopped him? He's 22 years old, so age is not a barrier; it's a hunting rifle, not one of those eeeeeevil scary black guns; and it's quite likely, given its age, that it's a family heirloom - which would mean that not only was it legally owned, it would have been legally owned for years.

The only way you could have kept it out of his hands would have been to enact a nationwide confiscation regime. Quite aside from the utter futility of trying to confiscate 450 million firearms in private hands in the US, or the repeated promises that gun control of course wouldn't apply to hunting rifles, there's the pesky Second Amendment to take into account - and repealing that is impossible, for it would require a minimum of 75 (mre likely 76) state legislative bodies to sign off on it...and even that would not eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's settled law that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, but guarantees rights that already exist.

I don't propose that I could have stopped him at all, and that's obviously not my point.

I believe that there could have bben any number of ways to keep that gun out of his hands. we don't even know how many ways that there could have been at this point.

The actualo meaning of the Second Amendment has been changed since the 80s, and I believe that its in need of clarification.

If your idea of gun control would not have stopped him, then it's not relevant to the current discussion.

Bullshit.

Just to start with, his parents might have prevented from ovning a gun or doing this,

See "family heirloom". The only way to prevent them from owning a gun would be to confiscate it. And he had revealed himself to be a hard leftist, but if he'd not shown tendencies toward actual violence, then they'd have no reason to keep him away from it.

That may or may not be the actual case here.

I'll give you credit for one thing though.

At least you didn't censor me and give me a "Time out" for expressing my completely reasonoble opinions on your page like MMM did...

You've (barely) trod the civil line, but I warn you that if you start calling people names, I won't give you a timeout: I'll go straight to a ban.

I'm not inclined to call anyone names they do that to me first or are just insufferably stupid.

"bigot" is right on the edge.

I don't use thatv word losely

Well what did you expect?
You clearly had your hate boner hanging out....without consent

I hate no one.

As a matter of act, I try to love everyone, difficult though that might often be,

I'd say it's pretty likely. Mauser-action .30-06 hunting rifles have been made for decades; they left military service before 1960, by and large, and front-line military service not long after the end of WWII. I'd guess the suspect's parents to be in their 50s, so 1970 or later. The rifle is quite likely to have been made before the suspect's father was born.

Is that somehowc relevant to this discussion?

Sure it is. You said that his parents might have been prevented from owning a gun, and I pointed out that the rifle may well - in fact, is quite likely to - have been acquired long before any resrtictions might be in place. Therefore, the only way to stop them from owning it is to confiscate it.

It's pretty clear at this point that somebody should have done that.

Well, at least you're honest about advocating for confiscation of civilian-owned hunting rifles.

Understand that I wouldn't always advocate for that.

If you advocate for it at all, you are advocating for confiscation of hunting rifles owned by civilians who did nothing to deserve it.

So dangerous people shouldn't be disarmed?

Define "dangerous person". In particular, do so in such a way that it cannot be used to disarm someone whose political opinions don't agree with government orthodoxy.

This guy, for instance.

And some places have red flag laws. Are you against those?

That's not a definition. How would you define dangerous person in such a way as to disarm him and yet not disarm people for being politically incorrect? We can't simply say "well, I'd have confiscated his guns" after something bad happens. That's not policy. That's pandering.

And I oppose any red flag law that does not incorporate full due process protections at the point of confiscation. Having to prove oneself innocent is abhorrent to American jurisprudence.

Most red flag laws do require due process, and they save lives.

This also answers your first question.

Do you not wish that this murderer didn't have a gun to use?

I do not believe it's possible to deny him a gun to use.

And erd flag laws never give the person whose weapons are to be confiscated due process until after htey have been taken. The only point where due process happens is when he petitions to get them back.The judge issues the red flag confisction order on the petition of (who, exactly, varies from state to state), and the target is not given an opportunity to oppose it.

I disagree.

And don't you think it makes sense to take away the guns of someone who may be a danger to themselves or othere BEFORE they harm themselves or others rather than after they do so?

And don't you think that if someone was able to argue in favor of retaining their guns before having them temporarily taken away from them that they woulodn't argue in favor of keeping them and end up hurting people if they were allowed to do so?

Of course all red flag laws aren't consistent or as good as they might be. If they were federal laws they could be.

You're arguing to deprive someone of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right without bothering to convict them of a crime first. "Innocent until proven guilty" has meaning, you know. That is why the entire concept of "due process of law" exists.

So, people will die, and that's okay?

Banning murder hasn't stopped it, has it?

My point stands: there's no way you could have kept a gun out of the hands of Charlie Kirk's killer...at least not and remain within the Constitution.

That's a completely ridiculous thing to say.

And I disagree.

And yet you haven't proposed anything that can be done and remain within the Constitutionally-required bounds of due process.

Your bringing the constitution into this will not save any lives.

You're just clearly willing to argue for 2A absolutism over lives.

Every life is precious. Nobody gets their guns permanently taken away under red flag laws.

Nothing the government does that is outside the Constitution is legitimate. Period, end of discussion.

If the government were to decide to kill every 20th gun owner out of hand, it would undoubtedly save lives. So you'd be fine with that?

Gun save lives, and taking away people's guns will put some of them in immediate danger. Indeed, the way to guarantee success in assassinating someoen who's known to have armed themselves for self-defense is to first file a red flag complaint against them. Once the state has disarmed them for you, you have a clear field. It doesn't have to be permanent.

Bullshit.

And that's another completely ridiculous premise.

And bullsit once again.

I don't advocate taking away just anyone's guns, let alone everyones.

You don' thave to. You only have to advocate taking away the guns of anyone you think is "dangerous", based on some nebulous standard you can't articulate that would operate before they actually did anything to prove their danger, all in the name of "saving lives".

The Constitution be damned.

I disagree.

A vsingle life is infinitely more important than any one person's assumed "Right" to own a gun.

Is it more important than allowing me to defend my own life with the best means available>

I don't see how taking away a potentially dangerous persons guns temporarily would endanger you in any way.

Noone is coming for your guns.

...until someone like you decides I'm "dangerous", that is, with my having no right to respond until after the deed is done.

So then never, I hope?

I doubt that anyone like me is ever likely to decide that you're dangerous, but I also hope that if someone does, that your guns will be temporarily taken away from you.

There's only one problem. Giving anyone the right to decide that someone else is "dangerous" is a direct line to government control of fundamental civil rights, and one day, the government is going to be run by people you hate.

I disagree.

And I may or may not end up hating those people. That's impossible to say.

Your page says you support Antifa AKA cowards in masks going around attacking people

That's not what antifa is or does.

If you think that is what antifa means, you are so indoctrinated you are beyond help. You just classified all WWII allied vets as 'cowards in masks'. good job.

Wrong.

Antifa is "antifascist", by their own definition. But Allied vets from WWII didn't think that today's Antifa was in any sense related to their fight against Hitler. I've spoken to some.

The crucial difference is that Antifa reserves unto itself the right to define who is and is not a Nazi. They use that right to justify attacking anyone and everyone who does not adhere to their woke Marxist doctrine of the moment. Oppose them? You're a Nazi, and suitable only to have violence - not words, real, actual violence - visited upon you.

For today's Antifa to claim solidarity with the Allied forces of WWII is nothing less than stolen valor. They merit only contempt. I hope that they are rooted out and their billionaire funders prosecuted under RICO.

You are oversimplified and generalizing for the sake of demonizing those you disagree with, literally exactly what you are blaming the left for.

The fact you cannot see how indoctrinated you are is legitimately troubling.

And before you assume, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, I am a Populist.

Objectively, factually, the Right wing has been the far majority of perpetrators of political violence including mass shootings and assassination attempts.

You are painting a side with broad strokes while crying foul of being painted with broad strokes yourself.

What you are doing is equally, if not more destructive as the rhetoric you are criticizing.

I am describing the way I've seen Antifa operate. They do exactly what the NSDAP did in the 1930s. I'm sorry you don't see that, or like when I say it, but it's the truth, and I will neither apologize nor recant.

Reflect on this: after Kirk's assassination, not a single storefront was boarded up in any city of the world in fear of mass riots. Compare that to the "mostly peaceful" Antifa/BLM riots of 2020.

You are again purposefully glazing over nuance to support your aguement and have this shown that you have no actual interest in debate, only demonizing those you don't agree with and generalizing.

Have fun with your Brown Shirt.

When a leftist says "nuance", I grab my wallet and my crotch, because they're looking to either screw me or rob me.

The brown shirt has been replaced by black bloc.

Again with the generalization, I just said I'm a populist. Can you not read?

If you don't want to be taken for a leftist, don't make noises like one. Supporting Antifa uncritically is definietly a leftist position.

That still doesn't mean that understand what antifa is or does It's not even spelled with a capital "A".

All right, since you obviously know so much more than I do about what that group is and is not, enlighten me.

It's not a group, antifa is a political position. Literally just meaning Anti Facist. There are groups that fall under that umbrella that are violent, yes. Those are not representative of the whole. You can either paint with broad strokes and label every antifacist under the 'violently category, but if you do, not be surprised when someone paints you with the 'nazi' brush because there are actual neo-nazis in the Republican party.

You can't have it both ways, either pay attention to nuance and accept that both sides are fucked up, or shut your mouth when someone generalized you as a bigot the same way you generalize others.

For the record, I do believe you are a bigot.

You go right on believing that. Anyone who truly knows me knows just how far wrong that statement is.

For the record, I do not hold anyone respoinsible for who they are, or for characteristics they did not choose and cannot change. I only hold people responsible for what they do.

Just as long as they aren't gay, right? /s

Heh. No, actually, I consider sexual orientation one of those characteristics that they did not choose and cannot change.

Whatever, you won't convince me to shed tears for a bigot. Charlie reaped what he sowed.

That sword cuts both ways, as the Left - and those who make leftist noises - are about to find out.

I'm trembling in my boots.

*shrug*

FWIW, I don't expect the coming hot civil war to directly affect aonyone here. It will be too widespread for that. And if it does, I will not cheer anyone's death, unlike so many leftists have done over the last few days.

I don't want it to happen. But I greatly fear we have crossed that line.

You sure have a lot of weird ideas and misapprehensions of the left.

That's what this whole journal is based on, as well as threatening them.

I've seen far, far, far too many posts on X and the like of leftists cheering that Charlie Kirk is dead, and far, far too few like Cenk Uygur who didn't couple a ritual denunciation of political violence with "but Kirk brought it on himself..." to believe that they are anything but representative.

Threats? No. Warnings of what they have unleashed.

You're just obviously biased against the left. That's where you started from.

Yes, and? I have never made any bones about being a conservative.

Just to start with, theyre not even a "Group", per se. Anyone who considers themselves an antifascist is antifa They have no overarching organization or association.

You clearly don't even understand even the most basic facts of antifa.

Cut it with the strawman bs. Comparing stupid rioting black bloc losers to men who fought actual fascism just shows how wrong YOU are.

So strange. To the left, it seems the opposite - with figures on the right being the source of much inflammatory invective. I see our country devolving into something racist, misogynist, classist, puritanical, and sinisterly authoritarian. I see no evidence of good faith. But those on the right appear to see something entirely different.

As a pacifist, I am against violence and extremism. Unequivocally, this should not have happened. Likewise I would caution against using it as a rallying call for 'vengeance' against the left. As of now, it is known that the current suspect came from a conservative gun-owning church-going Mormon family. Their parents are registered Republicans and the suspect is listed as being an inactive voter with no party affiliation (meaning they haven't voted in the last two elections). He is quoted as saying Charlie Kirk "was full of hate and spreading hate." A classmate described him as "politically active and outspoken about people’s rights [and] thought both political sides were contributing to a country being in a worse place and not improving the world." And as some have already noted, the recovered bullets were engraved with internet memes.

We should remember also the latest in a long line of school shootings that occurred the same day, in Colorado, orchestrated by a 16 year-old espousing antisemitic and white supremacist views on social media.

I would pose to you that the true enemy is neither left or right, it is extremism of any flavour and the call to violence which only escalates to more violence splashing indiscriminately upon all.

It's known that he engraved his cartridges with LGBTQ+ and hard-left slogans. It's known that he used many of the adjectives you started your post with to describe Kirk. What's more I see plenty of folks on the left dancing on Kirk's grave, using those same words, as well as "fascist" and "Nazi".

Those words are not designed to further debate. They're designed to incite hatred, the kind of hatred Kirk's killer displayed. He has been described by a friend as extremely forceful in his leftist beliefs. They're designed not to further discussion, but to end it. To call someone "racist" or "homophobic" or the like is not meant to advance anyone's understanding. They're meant to tag the person they're leveled at as beyond the pale, not deserving of the protections of polite society - whether the words are actually applicable or not.

It's quite acceptable on the Left to use those discussion-ending words over the slightest disagreement. When someone dares deviate from the left-wing woke doctrine of the day, the Left is quick to pounce and use some of those words, as well as "fascist". Antifa, in particular, will drop the word "fascist" on anyone and everyone who does not agree with their program in full.

And when someone is labeled "racist" or "misogynist" for what they have as sincerely held beliefs, perhaps driven by their religion, perhaps not, and that happens enough times, that person is far more likely to decide that they might as well accept the label and embrace it than they are to bend the knee.

I absolutely agree with you that the problem is extremism - but I argue that the extremism on the Right is a reaction to the extremism on the Left that gave us COVID lockdowns, George Floyd riots (parts of Minneapolis have still not rebuilt, 5 years later!), Antifa burning federal buildings in Portland, soft-on-crime DAs, and all the rest of it. We've put up with it for far too long, and, to borrow a line, we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it any more!

The article I linked in the post has a much fuller list of the atrocities leftwing extremism has inflicted on American society. I urge you to read it, and maybe you'll understand why we're fed up.

I absolutely remember the school shooting in Colorado that same day, and condemn it just as I do any and all school shootings. But while you cite that shooter's right-wing leanings, I must point out that at least two school shooters (and possibly more) were trans, hardly right-wing extremist material.

I point that out not to slam trans people, but to point out that the answer to school shootings is not the guns or the individuals, but rather a question: Why do people want to shoot up schools? Until we answer that question and fix the problem, we will never solve the real problem of school shootings.

I would love to end extremism and restore the kind of civil discourse Charlie Kirk embodied. Think what you will of him, but he lived his life for discussing exactly these kinds of issues civilly, in a spirit of true engagement. We don't need fewer Charlie Kirks. We need more and more, on both ends of the spectrum.

But calling someone a Nazi is not the way to get them.

Another view of why America is so polarized: https://jewishworldreview.com/0925/.....llis091125.php

Contrary to early reports, there were absolutely no LGBTQ+ slogans etched into either his gun or those shells.

At the news conference, it was reported that one cartridge had "Notices Bulges OWO What's That?", and another had "If you read this, you are gay. LMAO", to go along with "O bella ciao", an Antifa theme song from the Italian communists, and "Hey fascists! Catch!".

The first two are LGBTQ+.

Oh come on. You're really stretching things here.

What you're calling "LGBQT+" was just him taunting people with memes.

Telling that they didn't respond to your actual points and just deflected towards attacking LGBTQ people...

Really an eye opening to see many people realizing how violent the left can be. It's such a shame what happen to kirk... he stood up for our voices and amercia... 🇺🇲 god rest his soul

He was nothing but a completely virulent bigot.

Read a Bible, the lord can save you if you save yourself from devastating and self hatred.

You're COMPLETELY deluded.

That's pretty self explanatory for you

Riiiight...

I'm starting to think you're the one that's deluded and full of bigotry.
Better yet ....the embodiment of hatred from the responses I've been seeing from you.

What you think of me means nothing. You don't know me,

I think Obi-Wan best said it

"You have become the very thing you swore to destroy!"

Of course I have.

Amen my friend

He may not know you personally, but I think we can ALL tell from your username and tagline that you're just a typical leftoid internet edgelord who isn't worth listening to.

Hahahaha!

You clearly don't understand that my name here is a gordian knot of meanings clearly meant to be taken with a sense of humor and my tagline is intended to make fun of people exactly like you.

"my tagline is intended to make fun of people exactly like you"

Too bad it just makes us laugh at how pathetic you are! 😂

It's your right to do so if you choose. Can't say as I care.

Amen to chugboat

See above.

I'd rather burn a bible, Christianity is responsible for more bloodshed throughout history than any other cause.

How euphoric are you feeling today, Roachdog? Buy a new Fedora to add to your extensive collection? Drink down a nice Mountain Dew? Scarf down a bag of cheetos and lick the dust off your fingers? Have a good jerk off to your framed portrait of Christopher Hitchens?

Your inflammatory response is telling. Since you are so quick to jump on the Bible bandwagon, maybe reflect on Jesus' teachings and ask why you are so militant against those that don't believe in your religion.

Maybe instead of being immediately defensive, ask why so many wars have been declared in the name of God or religious doctrine.
Using God to justify war and death is as immoral, if not more so, as any other killing.

Wait wait....so you say don't generalize Antifa but here you are generalizing Christianity.

Guess what? That makes you a bigot...by your standards

I'm not acknowledging baseless ad hominems. Try again.

Telling someone to read a Bible isn't disproving that Charlie was a bigot.

Being a bigot doesn't make you deserving of death!

I never said that he was "Desrving of death".

I'm just tired of the violence, the rhetoric, and the media who profits from turning us against each other via social media 'engagement' and ad revenue. They know exactly what they're doing.

This is the danger of the whole 'by whatever means necessary' that a vocal and sizeable minority have taken up by a banner. This means seizing control of the narrative, of political power, of institutions, and the very laws that hold this country together by any way possible. This means lying, deception, misdirection, incitement and even outright violence are tools to be used to get their way. They are, in no uncertain terms, bullies. This is the lunatic fringe who are driving the bus and being funded by a few ridiculously wealthy sociopaths who are undoubtedly using them as tools.

Those of us who are conservative, in the relative center, and I'd wager a fair few on the center left are fed up right now. The answer to this isn't gun control, and it isn't silencing legitimate debate held in good faith, and it sure isn't by settling those debates with the pull of a trigger. Most of us know that, and it is well past time that the lunatic fringe is removed from the driver's seat and stuffed into a box at the back of the bus where it rightfully belongs.

I don't advocate violence, but I think that the same cancel culture tactics that this fringe so gleefully used against anyone they didn't like are about to come around full circle.

I've been asking this question all week. I keep hearing 'fascist', 'Nazi', 'Hitler' bandied about. I also look around and the most fascist activity I'm seeing is the Antisemitism that's choking the country. Could someone please tell me what the political affiliation of the antisemitic people is? I'm pretty sure they aren't Conservatives, especially observing mister <s>Madman¡</s> Mamdani and his rhetoric.

Well said Perfesser. I agree.

Vix

Well said!!

Vix

US politics have always been confusing to me, and it's "just" 2 parties.
I don't know enough about the guy to really have a strong opinion either way; one thing this does for me is making me think yet again that the 2nd. Amendment does not fully work as originally intended for this day and age.

I don't hate the US, not the left nor the right - to be fully honest I don't care much for it one way or the other; the only reason I care a little bit is because I have friends and loved ones over there, and there are currently certain politicians who are making day to day life very uneedlessly hard for the people I care about.

Yeah it can be very mind draining and can lead to separation between friends and family.

I went through that before

It's worse when his own kids witnessed It, no child deserves that. :(

I know right <:/

That's it. You've thrown that word around far too casually, with the intent to generate heat rather than light. Goodbye.

I'm sorry, what makes me a

BIGOT?

Because I asked a question? I think someone just identified themself as a BIGOT.

That's the thing with these types of people. You say something opposite of their views?..... you're automatically a bigot or some other related terms. These terms has lost all their meanings at this rate from being abused so much. Can't agree to disagree anymore apparently :/

I'm not even American and I can definitely see how bad it has become in the US. It's really sad unfortunately how polarized things are. However, after Wednesday's tragedy ....and the unfortunate "rejoicing & celebrating" over a person's assassination... I think the silent majority of the US are now fed up with what the Left has been able to get away with the past 5-10 years.

Here's the thing..... have you noticed there hasnt been any cities burning down over this assassination? NONE, NADDA..... just people gathering paying tribute. That speaks volumes. Yet somehow these people are "Bigots" according to certain people.

At least the Left can acknowledge they have faults. Now don't get me wrong, the Right has issues as well. Nobody is perfect. Unfortunately, I think it has come to the point where it's now "Good vs Evil".

That's exactly why I asked this innocent ⚀⚀ (but loaded) 🎲🎲 question. I figured I'd shake the extremists out of the trees but the one who responded was one I'd blocked years ago (and who still makes a hobby out of harassing me).

You're definitely right; I haven't seen any cities burning, either.

"everyone I don't agree with is a bigot"

Sit this one out old fart if that's all you've got. Same goes for Roachdog.

Many of us have been trying to warn the lunatic Left for over 15 years that if they did not stop advocating for political violence, that they would inevitably feel the wrath of the Right fighting back. And what did we get?

We were called ‘nazi apologists”, ‘fascist sympathizers”, slandered relentlessly all for disavowing violence. Eventually they just dropped the ‘apologist” labels and called us ‘nazis” and ‘fascists” outright, even as they simultaneously advocated for violently attacking anyone labeled ‘nazis” and ‘fascists”.
They harassed conventions into banned artists, comedians, and attendees. They cancelled us, harassing our friends and clients into dropping and blacklisting artists. They banned us from art sites and social spaces. Doxxed us and harassed us at home. Called employers to get people fired from jobs. Called for punching, beating, and stabbing anyone labeled ‘nazi” or ‘fascist”.. And on and on…
For years they called ‘words violence”, while actively encouraging and engaging in actual violence.

Now, they cheered and celebrated the murder of a man whose only crime was talking to people.

He wasn’t an extremist, he wasn’t a radical, he was a basic bare stock Christian conservative..
They did not care who the murderer was, they were cheering while his body was still warm..

That isn’t a ‘political disagreement”.
That isn’t a ‘different opinion”.

That is, in a word, evil.

So you know what? I’m done.
I’m done trying to give these people chance after chance after chance to stop being evil.
I don’t care what happens to them anymore.

They get banned from conventions and platforms?
I don’t care.
They get fired from their job?
I don’t care.
They get blacklisted from employment?
I don’t care.
They lose their benefits?
I don’t care.
They lose their house?
I don’t care.
They get harassed and bullied on the street?
I don’t care.
Their membership or open support to terrorist groups gets them thrown into prison?
I Don’t Bloody Care.

I’m done holding back the coming tide of Righteous retaliatory vengeance to their bullshite, because I just do not care what happens to them anymore. I do not care about the Right ‘going too far” anymore..
They wanted to pretend they were ‘fighting fascism” so badly?
Well, now you get an enemy that will finally start fighting back.

Come what may, they get exactly what they deserve. And I’m done caring what happens to them.

Nobody is debating your right to exist, that is completely disingenuous and you know it.
And no, Charlie never advocated for violence against anyone.

Note to MagicDawn: commenting on my journal and then blocking me earns you an insta-block as well as having all of your comments hidden.

*applause*