This take is refreshing. Yes political violence is bad no matter who does it or why they do it. But it’s been frustrating to see so many people gloss over the plain fact that Trump and his allies, including people like Kirk, have been relentlessly turning up the temperature of political rhetoric for a decade now, which has normalized extreme rhetoric on both sides.
On gun control, I agree with you, but the politics of the issue are brutal. I don’t see how pro-gun control Democratic Party wins back the senate, for example.
Conservatives have been threatening Liberals both implicitly and explicitly with violence for so long that in my nearly 50 year life I cannot remember a time when they didn't do this.
In the circumstance when a left-winger commits an act of violence, Conservatives react with shock and horror not because of the violent act itself, but because they consider the use of violence to be their own unique province.
I know you want to keep this contemporary, but you could easily add Giffords, all the school shooting, ‘I don’t like Mondays’, Vegas, Brietbart, going postal, Reagan, the Kennedy’s and more going all the way back.
Thank you for having the courage to stand up and say this. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who want to minimize the negativity of his rhetoric because he's dead, but the truth is that while it's a tragedy for any family to lose their father, our national discourse is better off without Charlie Kirk in it.
The weapon used to kill Charlie Kirk has been found, it's a bog standard bolt action hunting rifle of the type permitted even in places like Europe and Australia. I don't think any of the other political shootings you mentioned were committed with unusual weapons either, JFK and MLK in particular were shot with California compliant firearms. This is an actual root causes problem, access to the tools doesn't create the underlying desire.
How many people own guns in Europe and Australia compared to the rate of US guns ownership? Are there any other differences in law that might be pertinent?
Liberalism was the miracle cure for Europe’s two-hundred-year murder binge. It said, “hey Catholics, hey Protestants, maybe don’t rip each other’s hearts out in the town square.” America took that miracle, put it on a shelf, and swapped it for open carry rallies and talk-show fascism. Kirk spent years preaching that gun deaths were just the cost of freedom. Now he’s the footnote proving the point. Blessed be the ones who remember liberalism wasn’t about civility. It was about survival.
On the other hand, we have had guns in this country since its inception and mass shootings have been an issue, primarily, of the last 30 years or so, which suggests a lot of the problem is cultural.
It’s cultural- it’s smart phones and no escape from social media and other websites. It’s “influencers” who make their living by being outraged. And those same people are making money for the tech platforms because all of this shit drives traffic and views. It’s the algorithm that feeds you nothing but the same stuff. I’m a liberal but I pay attention to right wing stuff. That destroyed my algorithm because all I got was more and more unhinged right wing sources.
It takes hearing/reading something 3 times before it sticks in your head. If 3 sources tell you what you want to hear, it becomes your reality. If you use social media regularly and go to political groups you are even more likely to encounter untrue things. Like that Kirk’s shooter was trans and had trans things carved into the bullets. That the shooter was def trans (because they are the rights favorite group to bully) and absolutely part of the “radical left.”
It was a white male (shocking! It’s almost like all of these mass shooting incidents have something in common, but ehh that’s inconvenient. The sayings on the bullets were all about video games. The hey fascist catch is a catch phrase used in a video game before you blow someone up.
Anyway, the best part? The shooter was radicalized by an actual Nazi. He shot Kirk because Nick Fuentes was fighting with Kirk. The boys were in a tiff.
None of that matters though. The R’s have doubled down on everything they said.
People like Fuentes are able to grow and thrive because we live in the attention economy.
A lot of mass shooters are nihilistic shooters.
None of this toxicity is going to change or go away. There’s way too much money to make. It’s depressing.
I believe very strongly in the golden rule. As in; Other people are treating you in the way that they want to be treated.
If the right actually wants this shit to stop, they'll stop forcing us to reach across the entire table and try to meet us in the middle. Though at this point, they might have to reach across the whole table if they want me to cooperate with them.
You don’t understand that we are already meeting you in the middle. Having the state only deport some illegal immigrants is the moderate solution. Pretending to forget about the COVID lockdowns so that we can be neighbors again is the moderate solution. Abortion being a state’s issue is the moderate solution. Trusting the police and even National Guard to keep major cities safe is the moderate solution. Every “right wing” policy is already a compromise.
If this is the middle, then what exactly is the extreme?
Also please tell me why no house republican voted to release the Epstein files. One should think that the rape and sex trafficking of children is you know, a bipartisan issue. And yet… here we are.
But I want to address your point - the state has not deported “some” immigrants. It has arrested actual citizens for the crime of being brown and speaking Spanish. The Supreme Court just had an appalling case. And then there’s sending migrants to third world shit holes like Sudan, Libya, El Salvador. The people sent to El Salvador were beaten on a regular basis and raped. A fair amount of migrants did actually try to be here the right way. They claimed asylum, and had regular check ins with ICE. Worth also noting is that all of these deportations are happening with no trial.
One would think that the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle of being American, but hey, i guess that doesn’t matter when you are rounding up people that Trump has demonized. Your awesome raids are going to increase prices EVEN MORE but it’s cool, at least someone got to brutalize a person who fled their country because of violence.
I can’t believe you are acting like the Covid lockdowns were like being put in prison or something.
No one knew what to do in regards to covid. It was a new virus that mutated. Keeping people away from each other saved lives. But oh god the horrible inconvenience of having to wear a mask and care about someone other than yourself, right? Hey, it was only old people and those who were sick that suffocated to death. Natural selection, right?
Abortion has zero business being a states rights issue. Who are any of you to tell me what to do with my body? Oh yes, please, let’s have more men who fundamentally have zero clue about pregnancy make medical decisions for all women. Not only that, but forcing someone to have a baby when the US is one of the countries with the highest maternal death rates is rich. Let’s talk about the real horror show of your awesome states rights issue.
Now, I’ve been told that everyone is pro-life. Please tell me where the pro-life is in the cases of women dying from sepsis because doctors can’t do anything to save them legally until they are on the brink of death or in the process of dying. Another really awesome thing is forcing women to keep their dead fetus inside of them until they naturally give birth. Not only is it absolutely cruel to do to another person, it too can cause women to die.
My favorite example of the wonderful states rights bs is the case of the woman in Georgia. She was dead - no oxygen to her brain, when they revived her because she was 8 weeks pregnant. The state then put her on a ventilator, as an incubator for the fetus. When a woman dies with a fetus inside of her, what happens to the fetus?
It is starved of oxygen as well. The woman’s family had zero say in what happened to her because the state decided they knew better. Fun fact- her family had to pay for all those months to keep her corpse functioning via a ventilator. My father was on one for 5 days before we pulled the plug. We were charged over $200,000. Months of that would be an absolute absurd amount of money. The fetus was born blind, with developmental issues. The kid will never have an independent life, and his family will have to pay for his care for his whole life. The state and doctors knew this. They just didn’t care.
Then we have the glorious states that force victims of incest to have a child, regardless of how young they are. Same thing with rape. I’ve literally heard from multiple people that “it’s taking lemons and making lemonade.”
What a joke.
Rape is about dominance and hate, not sex. Forcing a woman to have a child that was conceived via a hateful brutal attack is inhumane. Forcing that woman to be a mother of a child that looks like her rapist is cruel. Let’s also remember that the rapist can sue for custody rights. A person who raped someone can force the woman they raped to have to have her kid do weekends with dad, the rapist sociopath. It’s unhinged and cruel and that’s the point. It’s all states rights and all life is sacred but not the life of the woman.
Men don’t get pregnant, but all of you men sure think you can tell us what to do. Not only that, do any of you understand that pregnancy is not some fun ride? It can be absolutely miserable for people.
sending the National Guard into cities is against the constitution. I thought you guys worshipped it? The military has zero business being in cities that have no crisis happening. Crime is down, that’s an absolute fact. It’s not about crime, it’s about the show of force to shut people up. You can not send the national guard into a city without the city and state asking for help. Wild, but no one did. They are still in DC because DC isn’t a state so Trump can do whatever he wants. And this massive wave of crime? Isn’t it strange that the National guard isn’t in a ghetto. In DC, they are at the mall and downtown, literally doing trash duty!
Oh we care so much about crime, but let’s stick to the areas with the lowest crime rates.
It’s easy for you to say - hey just trust me bro, the police are great people and so are the national guard, you know with all of their guns. It’s so beyond obvious that you are a white guy. You should take a moment and ask how people who aren’t white feel about the police. Trust them to not shoot you! With a plethora of evidence of black people being killed for no justifiable reason. All that missing body cam footage means nothing, right?
Your statements are absurd. They are cruel. They lead to a lot of people dying and if they don’t die, they are traumatized - by their own government.
How is it that one issue- abortion- is all about states rights which you are for, but when it comes to a state not wanting the national guard there, it doesn’t matter because fed government? How is it all about state’s rights which is how covid was handled, by state decision, but now it’s not ok because why again?
Your argument isn’t even close to coherent. You continue to contradict yourself. It’s just utter hypocrisy, and none of you on the right can just admit it. Just own up to the fact that you absolutely don’t care about the rule of law and personal freedom when it’s your side and something you agree with. Stop being so disingenuous.
Your perspective is that you're reaching across the entire table, guess what the other side says the same thing. Are you correct, or they or mostly likely neither of you are.
Another bs argument. You fully know what Jan 6th is. You absolutely know what happened. Last i checked, the Dems didn’t storm the capitol in fury, beating police officers (yay law and order, we support the police..oops right), having a literal noose because Pence actually acted according to democratic principles.
These people broke the law, terrified congress, and went to prison after they received a fair trial.
And then, Trump let them out with pardons. Look up how many Jan 6ers have reoffended as soon as they got out.
At risk of being banned, I've got to respectfully disagree about the Pelosi clip linked elsewhere.
In it, Kirk's playing defense, rebutting charges that Republicans incited the attack on Pelosi: "oh yeah? How about we bail the dude out and get to know him?"
The call for bail is an obvious attempt at comedy. Not very funny, but there's a kind of demented Lucille Bluth quality to it. Kirk says "I bet his bail's thirty or forty-thousand bucks", like one of his listeners might have that in his wallet.
Kirk's explicit argument is "you think that gay, schitzo, jewelry-making nudist is a Republican?" (His characterization of the attacker, not mine.) The shit-eating grin you noticed is just self-satisfied smugness: he thinks he's very funny. Kirk uses the events to attack Democrats on how easy it is to post bail in Chicago for murder, and he obviously thinks he's clever for connecting the dots.
Maybe Kirk privately celebrated the attack. I wouldn't be surprised if someone turned up footage showing that, but this clip isn't it.
Jacob — a few facts on the law and the recent history:
1) Posse Comitatus + the exceptions. Yes, the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars the Army/Air Force from domestic law-enforcement. But Congress carved explicit exceptions. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) lets a president deploy forces to enforce federal law or suppress insurrection/domestic violence after issuing a proclamation to disperse; it’s not limited to a vague “national emergency” standard.
2) D.C. is unique. Unlike the states, the D.C. National Guard reports to the President, not a governor. That gives the president a clear, long-standing legal path to mobilize the DCNG during unrest (separate from invoking the Insurrection Act).
3) Los Angeles (2025). This summer’s deployment rested on 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to protect federal personnel and property (ICE and federal facilities). A district judge later ruled parts of that mission crossed into law enforcement barred by Posse Comitatus; it’s now on appeal. That’s litigation over how far the authority goes—not proof that any troop use is “illegal” in principle. Read the June 7 White House memo yourself and PolitiFact’s breakdown.
4) Chicago. If a governor doesn’t consent, the lawful path would be the Insurrection Act—especially §§ 252–253—which requires a presidential proclamation to disperse and a showing that ordinary law-enforcement is impracticable. People can argue whether those thresholds are met, but the statute plainly exists and has been used.
Once again, yes my earlier assessments are accurate , it is further important that before you claim these outlandish claims that you have the curiosity to find out the facts. Your dangerous.
It was be nice to think the blame for all of gun violence can be laid at the feet of the technology itself. But it’s also the case that compared to comparably wealthy countries there are large swathes of people (almost all men) who are far more accepting of violence as a solution to disputes. I can assure you that if there were as many guns per capita in Denmark that country wouldn’t have anything near our murder rate.
First, grief and condemnation. What happened to Charlie Kirk in Orem is evil. In a liberal society, political disagreements are settled with speech and votes—not assassination. That norm must be non-negotiable, across all factions.
Second, history. The post’s account of early-modern Europe flattens what historians actually describe. Yes, there were “wars of religion,” but those conflicts mixed creed with power: dynastic, territorial, and commercial rivalries all drove the violence. That’s precisely why classical liberalism matters: it created guardrails (conscience rights, limits on rulers, equal treatment under law) so Catholics and Protestants—and later, broader pluralism—could live together without civil war. Reducing the story to “religion causes slaughter; liberalism stopped it” misses half the picture.
Third, guns and tradeoffs. America’s firearm death toll is horrific by any humane measure. It’s also true that our constitutional tradition protects an armed citizenry as a check on concentrated power and for self-defense. The honest conversation is not “zero guns vs. guns everywhere,” but what combination of enforcement, due process, mental-health interventions, and targeted regulations reduces violence while respecting rights. (Reasonable people will disagree at the margins.)
Finally, fairness. Portraying Kirk as uniquely culpable for “legitimizing violence” while downplaying similar excesses on the left is exactly the asymmetry that keeps pushing people into corners. We can condemn reckless rhetoric wherever it appears and insist on one standard against political violence.
I’m pleading for precision: with our history, with our numbers, and with each other. Lower the heat; raise the argument.
"... our constitutional tradition protects an armed citizenry as a check on concentrated power ..."
Not anymore. The current president has trampled all over the Constitution, with permission from Congress and the Supreme Court, and our highly-armed citizenry have done approximately jack shit about it. In fact, our most highly-armed citizens are largely in favor of concentrated power, as long as it's concentrated with people like them. The idea of armed citizens checking the government is a fairy tale.
If you are going to make such statements, back them up with facts or supplements instead of talking points. To your point, since you don't like things... your ready to throw it out and put whatever fascist ( that is a accurate use of fascism ) desire you have . No - we need guns to protect us from misled and intellectually weak individuals like you because .. your insane. That insanity puts us all at risk because you will be able to justify harm to others based upon your broken value set.
Using soldiers for law enforcement is, in fact, against the law except in times of national emergency (see the Posse Comitatus Act). The president has falsely claimed that an emergency justifies his actions (see the federal military intervention in Los Angeles). In reality, these actions are clearly intended to suppress dissent (see his "declaration of war" against the city of Chicago without even the pretext of some emergency that requires federal military intervention). No "armed citizenry" has come to protect the public against this, so it seems clear to me that all of the talk about the 2nd Amendment protecting against tyranny is just that, talk.
The president's actions here are pretty close to fascism. My opinions, on the other hand, aren't even in the same ballpark as fascism. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I'm an "insane" fascist is indicative to me that it's likely not worth continuing this conversation with you. Have a nice evening.
Brilliant example of backing up your statements by going full insult.
You want facts? We can do facts. I love to cite my sources. But when you lose this argument, I don’t want to hear this bullshit about how the sources aren’t legitimate because they aren’t coming from some echo chamber you are a part of.
Let’s look at Trump.
First he’s a convicted felon. The constitution doesn’t say anything about that because our founders never envisioned such foolishness.
Sending in The national guard regardless of what states want is a violation of the constitution. States rights and all.
Deporting people with no trial - absolutely against the constitution.
Making billions while being in office through crypto. The president can not benefit financially while in office.
Trump literally said he would terminate the constitution if it could fix his election loss. He was responsible for a goddamn insurrection.
He constantly threatens those he perceives as enemies. I’ve lost track of how many times he has encouraged violence against democrats.
He has put grossly inept people into cabinet positions because they are loyalists. Kash Patel? Zero experience in law enforcement and bungled this shooting to the point where even your side was pissed. RFK jr - no medical background whatsoever but he’s now in charge of our health. The guy with a brain worm that caused brain damage, who also has a massive conflict of interest. He’s dead set on proving what creates autism in part because he has several lawsuits against drug companies. If he wins, he takes in millions. That is absolutely illegal.
I’m still not done -
Trump went to China and two days later Ivanka and him got all their patents through.
Israel - he needs Israel to wipe out the Palestinians because he’s been promised prime real estate there to build a resort. He has not tried to hide this.
Again, another conflict of interest and one that can lead to all out war.
Part of fascism is enforcing division between people in a country. It provides an “other” for people to blame, for their lives not being how they would like. Examples : illegal aliens, racism, sexism, hate towards trans people, and the best - it’s the left that is destroying the country.
It’s literally straight out of the fascist playbook.
Hitler offered the Jews after World War One because Germany’s economy was in tatters.
The reason you can’t afford the costs of living is because those Jews have all the money. Let’s solve the “Jewish problem” by getting rid of them. We’ll send them to detainment camps and force them to work as pay back for taking all of our money. On second thought, let’s just kill them! We’ll starve them, do horrible experiments on their bodies and force them to work until they literally die or we get bored and put a bullet in their heads.
We are currently in a recession, headed towards a depression. Let me remind you what happens when economic instability occurs? We blame the other. Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs! Trans people are perverts who are trying to turn our children gay or trans! They are … wait for it, because this was in your lazy insult - mentally ill. They should be locked up in psychiatric wards. Western women are entitled and won’t touch us, they are the reason so many men are lonely! We need to take away their right to vote (Pete Hegseth, project2025). Women have no business being in the workforce. They should stay at home and submit to their husbands and understand that their “biology” is to have and raise children! Plus, if we get rid of all the women in the workforce, us guys will get paid more! #feminismisacancer
All of these things are happening right now. Fascism is taking away the rights people previously had.
Trump has said that he will arrest people that dissent or threaten his hold on power. Ooops who cares about the first amendment?!
I’m tired now, so here’s a link to the Wikipedia that gives a vary derailed analysis of how your team are fascists.
You should actually read it. You might learn something.
The things that I mentioned can also be googled. I’m not doing the work for you because I already know that all this time I spent writing this means nothing.
Here’s an article about Timothy snider - one of the most respected historians the US has, who wrote a book about fascism titled Tyranny. He has left the US because he knows what is happening.
I recommend you actually read the book because again, you will learn something.
On the Supreme Court? The latest ruling said it’s ok to profile people based on skin color, language, ect because “probable cause.”
It also stated that throwing citizens into detention is fine, because they will eventually get out. All of this goes against everything this country is about.
There are countless other examples and if you don’t see it, it’s because you don’t want to. The court also has people like Thomas who recieved favors and privileges
(Like vacations and private flights) based on his being on the court. Absolutely illegal and yet he’s still there.
Finally, no one said you can’t have your precious guns. Some of us would like to see people stop being slaughtered because there are more guns than people in our country. We want to address mental health (guess who cut all of the funding for gun violence prevention? 🤔), gutting healthcare to being essentially unusable or so expensive that you can’t afford it - means all of those mentally ill people you hate can’t get any help.
Having red flag laws is fair. Banning ghost guns is smart. Charging the parents of mass shooters because they do nothing- fair and it gives incentive for the parents to be parents because they might end up in prison.
I own guns, btw. Yep, a libtard with a gun, Will wonders never cease! I believe we have a right to own them, but we need to make it harder for people to obtain. Waiting periods, mental health assessments, actual background checks? Seems reasonable to me.
Closing the loophole from buying a gun at a gun show? Seems smart.
Last - the poster you insulted said that guns are useless because they can’t stop fascism. There is no mass uprising about the fact that we have a man in office who walks all over the constitution.
I’m sure you won’t take the time to read this essay but I wrote it anyway because I’m sick of the disingenuous bullshit, the whataboutism, the outright lies.
The left’s ideas, I hate to break it to you, are absolutely against fascism, but again that doesn’t fit your smug narrative.
Thank you for speaking accurately about Kirk and his behavior, because it’s fucking disgusting watching Newsom and Ezra Klein pretend he was a good faith interlocutor instead of a ghoul who would (AND ALREADY HAS) applaud an assassination attempt on his enemies
I wish death upon no man but his is an obituary that I’m glad to have read.
Jeremiah, a fine piece of writing, but I’m mystified by your footnote. The Kirk tweet linked to has nothing to do with politicizing shootings. It has to do with the murder of Iryna Zarutska, which involved a knife, not a gun.
To people that have more knowledge of gun control: what are some of the more effective steps we can take to prevent these incidents? Too many gun control advocates seem to either call for vibes based measures like bump stock bans or removing guns from the population completely (which is never going to work). But what are things we can actually do that will prevent incidents like this and the school shootings that happen so regularly?
This take is refreshing. Yes political violence is bad no matter who does it or why they do it. But it’s been frustrating to see so many people gloss over the plain fact that Trump and his allies, including people like Kirk, have been relentlessly turning up the temperature of political rhetoric for a decade now, which has normalized extreme rhetoric on both sides.
On gun control, I agree with you, but the politics of the issue are brutal. I don’t see how pro-gun control Democratic Party wins back the senate, for example.
Conservatives have been threatening Liberals both implicitly and explicitly with violence for so long that in my nearly 50 year life I cannot remember a time when they didn't do this.
In the circumstance when a left-winger commits an act of violence, Conservatives react with shock and horror not because of the violent act itself, but because they consider the use of violence to be their own unique province.
How so? Obama continuously reached out to Republicans, meanwhile the angry Tea Party lashed out against him.
Give examples then.
Authoritarian? In what world?
Look at this current moment and tell me how it is exactly like the Obama years.
I always hear about this, but am never provided any examples. It's almost like you're making it up based on vibes.
Obama was like the biggest milquetoast dork who ever lived, not an authoritarian supervillain.
I know you want to keep this contemporary, but you could easily add Giffords, all the school shooting, ‘I don’t like Mondays’, Vegas, Brietbart, going postal, Reagan, the Kennedy’s and more going all the way back.
This is America.
Thank you for having the courage to stand up and say this. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who want to minimize the negativity of his rhetoric because he's dead, but the truth is that while it's a tragedy for any family to lose their father, our national discourse is better off without Charlie Kirk in it.
The weapon used to kill Charlie Kirk has been found, it's a bog standard bolt action hunting rifle of the type permitted even in places like Europe and Australia. I don't think any of the other political shootings you mentioned were committed with unusual weapons either, JFK and MLK in particular were shot with California compliant firearms. This is an actual root causes problem, access to the tools doesn't create the underlying desire.
How many people own guns in Europe and Australia compared to the rate of US guns ownership? Are there any other differences in law that might be pertinent?
The Internet is at your disposal for the ownership statistics, not exactly sure what you're asking for with the rest.
Liberalism was the miracle cure for Europe’s two-hundred-year murder binge. It said, “hey Catholics, hey Protestants, maybe don’t rip each other’s hearts out in the town square.” America took that miracle, put it on a shelf, and swapped it for open carry rallies and talk-show fascism. Kirk spent years preaching that gun deaths were just the cost of freedom. Now he’s the footnote proving the point. Blessed be the ones who remember liberalism wasn’t about civility. It was about survival.
Who is the person furthest to the right who you believe to be acting in good faith?
On the other hand, we have had guns in this country since its inception and mass shootings have been an issue, primarily, of the last 30 years or so, which suggests a lot of the problem is cultural.
It’s cultural- it’s smart phones and no escape from social media and other websites. It’s “influencers” who make their living by being outraged. And those same people are making money for the tech platforms because all of this shit drives traffic and views. It’s the algorithm that feeds you nothing but the same stuff. I’m a liberal but I pay attention to right wing stuff. That destroyed my algorithm because all I got was more and more unhinged right wing sources.
It takes hearing/reading something 3 times before it sticks in your head. If 3 sources tell you what you want to hear, it becomes your reality. If you use social media regularly and go to political groups you are even more likely to encounter untrue things. Like that Kirk’s shooter was trans and had trans things carved into the bullets. That the shooter was def trans (because they are the rights favorite group to bully) and absolutely part of the “radical left.”
It was a white male (shocking! It’s almost like all of these mass shooting incidents have something in common, but ehh that’s inconvenient. The sayings on the bullets were all about video games. The hey fascist catch is a catch phrase used in a video game before you blow someone up.
Anyway, the best part? The shooter was radicalized by an actual Nazi. He shot Kirk because Nick Fuentes was fighting with Kirk. The boys were in a tiff.
None of that matters though. The R’s have doubled down on everything they said.
People like Fuentes are able to grow and thrive because we live in the attention economy.
A lot of mass shooters are nihilistic shooters.
None of this toxicity is going to change or go away. There’s way too much money to make. It’s depressing.
I believe very strongly in the golden rule. As in; Other people are treating you in the way that they want to be treated.
If the right actually wants this shit to stop, they'll stop forcing us to reach across the entire table and try to meet us in the middle. Though at this point, they might have to reach across the whole table if they want me to cooperate with them.
You don’t understand that we are already meeting you in the middle. Having the state only deport some illegal immigrants is the moderate solution. Pretending to forget about the COVID lockdowns so that we can be neighbors again is the moderate solution. Abortion being a state’s issue is the moderate solution. Trusting the police and even National Guard to keep major cities safe is the moderate solution. Every “right wing” policy is already a compromise.
It's nice to know that Trump was the compromise from you people.
Thanks for telling me that you really wanted Steven Miller to be president instead.
You’re right.
thank you for admitting it 👍🏾
now get thicker skin you snowflake
Man, this is a great look at who you are as a person and boy it’s not pretty.
If this is the middle, then what exactly is the extreme?
Also please tell me why no house republican voted to release the Epstein files. One should think that the rape and sex trafficking of children is you know, a bipartisan issue. And yet… here we are.
But I want to address your point - the state has not deported “some” immigrants. It has arrested actual citizens for the crime of being brown and speaking Spanish. The Supreme Court just had an appalling case. And then there’s sending migrants to third world shit holes like Sudan, Libya, El Salvador. The people sent to El Salvador were beaten on a regular basis and raped. A fair amount of migrants did actually try to be here the right way. They claimed asylum, and had regular check ins with ICE. Worth also noting is that all of these deportations are happening with no trial.
One would think that the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle of being American, but hey, i guess that doesn’t matter when you are rounding up people that Trump has demonized. Your awesome raids are going to increase prices EVEN MORE but it’s cool, at least someone got to brutalize a person who fled their country because of violence.
I can’t believe you are acting like the Covid lockdowns were like being put in prison or something.
No one knew what to do in regards to covid. It was a new virus that mutated. Keeping people away from each other saved lives. But oh god the horrible inconvenience of having to wear a mask and care about someone other than yourself, right? Hey, it was only old people and those who were sick that suffocated to death. Natural selection, right?
Abortion has zero business being a states rights issue. Who are any of you to tell me what to do with my body? Oh yes, please, let’s have more men who fundamentally have zero clue about pregnancy make medical decisions for all women. Not only that, but forcing someone to have a baby when the US is one of the countries with the highest maternal death rates is rich. Let’s talk about the real horror show of your awesome states rights issue.
Now, I’ve been told that everyone is pro-life. Please tell me where the pro-life is in the cases of women dying from sepsis because doctors can’t do anything to save them legally until they are on the brink of death or in the process of dying. Another really awesome thing is forcing women to keep their dead fetus inside of them until they naturally give birth. Not only is it absolutely cruel to do to another person, it too can cause women to die.
My favorite example of the wonderful states rights bs is the case of the woman in Georgia. She was dead - no oxygen to her brain, when they revived her because she was 8 weeks pregnant. The state then put her on a ventilator, as an incubator for the fetus. When a woman dies with a fetus inside of her, what happens to the fetus?
It is starved of oxygen as well. The woman’s family had zero say in what happened to her because the state decided they knew better. Fun fact- her family had to pay for all those months to keep her corpse functioning via a ventilator. My father was on one for 5 days before we pulled the plug. We were charged over $200,000. Months of that would be an absolute absurd amount of money. The fetus was born blind, with developmental issues. The kid will never have an independent life, and his family will have to pay for his care for his whole life. The state and doctors knew this. They just didn’t care.
Then we have the glorious states that force victims of incest to have a child, regardless of how young they are. Same thing with rape. I’ve literally heard from multiple people that “it’s taking lemons and making lemonade.”
What a joke.
Rape is about dominance and hate, not sex. Forcing a woman to have a child that was conceived via a hateful brutal attack is inhumane. Forcing that woman to be a mother of a child that looks like her rapist is cruel. Let’s also remember that the rapist can sue for custody rights. A person who raped someone can force the woman they raped to have to have her kid do weekends with dad, the rapist sociopath. It’s unhinged and cruel and that’s the point. It’s all states rights and all life is sacred but not the life of the woman.
Men don’t get pregnant, but all of you men sure think you can tell us what to do. Not only that, do any of you understand that pregnancy is not some fun ride? It can be absolutely miserable for people.
sending the National Guard into cities is against the constitution. I thought you guys worshipped it? The military has zero business being in cities that have no crisis happening. Crime is down, that’s an absolute fact. It’s not about crime, it’s about the show of force to shut people up. You can not send the national guard into a city without the city and state asking for help. Wild, but no one did. They are still in DC because DC isn’t a state so Trump can do whatever he wants. And this massive wave of crime? Isn’t it strange that the National guard isn’t in a ghetto. In DC, they are at the mall and downtown, literally doing trash duty!
Oh we care so much about crime, but let’s stick to the areas with the lowest crime rates.
It’s easy for you to say - hey just trust me bro, the police are great people and so are the national guard, you know with all of their guns. It’s so beyond obvious that you are a white guy. You should take a moment and ask how people who aren’t white feel about the police. Trust them to not shoot you! With a plethora of evidence of black people being killed for no justifiable reason. All that missing body cam footage means nothing, right?
Your statements are absurd. They are cruel. They lead to a lot of people dying and if they don’t die, they are traumatized - by their own government.
How is it that one issue- abortion- is all about states rights which you are for, but when it comes to a state not wanting the national guard there, it doesn’t matter because fed government? How is it all about state’s rights which is how covid was handled, by state decision, but now it’s not ok because why again?
Your argument isn’t even close to coherent. You continue to contradict yourself. It’s just utter hypocrisy, and none of you on the right can just admit it. Just own up to the fact that you absolutely don’t care about the rule of law and personal freedom when it’s your side and something you agree with. Stop being so disingenuous.
I hope that was cathartic for you.
You know how I said in my comment at the end that you wouldn’t address anything I actually said?
Thanks for proving my point.
You're the living unironic embodiment of Pauline Kael's joke "How could Nixon win, I don't know anybody who voted for him"
I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything I said?
Or is this just another pissbaby snowflake mad that I'm saying mean words to them?
Your perspective is that you're reaching across the entire table, guess what the other side says the same thing. Are you correct, or they or mostly likely neither of you are.
"boeth sieds!"
call me when the dems do a january 6th. An actual january 6th, mind.. Not the pussy hat protests that ya'll say are even worse than that.
january 6th, Sure June 2020, I live in MN I didn't get a curfew order on Jan 6 I did repeatedly in June
I mean, if you wanted to get sick and die in agony, that should've been your choice, I agree.
also, who was president then?
Another bs argument. You fully know what Jan 6th is. You absolutely know what happened. Last i checked, the Dems didn’t storm the capitol in fury, beating police officers (yay law and order, we support the police..oops right), having a literal noose because Pence actually acted according to democratic principles.
These people broke the law, terrified congress, and went to prison after they received a fair trial.
And then, Trump let them out with pardons. Look up how many Jan 6ers have reoffended as soon as they got out.
At risk of being banned, I've got to respectfully disagree about the Pelosi clip linked elsewhere.
In it, Kirk's playing defense, rebutting charges that Republicans incited the attack on Pelosi: "oh yeah? How about we bail the dude out and get to know him?"
The call for bail is an obvious attempt at comedy. Not very funny, but there's a kind of demented Lucille Bluth quality to it. Kirk says "I bet his bail's thirty or forty-thousand bucks", like one of his listeners might have that in his wallet.
Kirk's explicit argument is "you think that gay, schitzo, jewelry-making nudist is a Republican?" (His characterization of the attacker, not mine.) The shit-eating grin you noticed is just self-satisfied smugness: he thinks he's very funny. Kirk uses the events to attack Democrats on how easy it is to post bail in Chicago for murder, and he obviously thinks he's clever for connecting the dots.
Maybe Kirk privately celebrated the attack. I wouldn't be surprised if someone turned up footage showing that, but this clip isn't it.
Jacob — a few facts on the law and the recent history:
1) Posse Comitatus + the exceptions. Yes, the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars the Army/Air Force from domestic law-enforcement. But Congress carved explicit exceptions. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) lets a president deploy forces to enforce federal law or suppress insurrection/domestic violence after issuing a proclamation to disperse; it’s not limited to a vague “national emergency” standard.
2) D.C. is unique. Unlike the states, the D.C. National Guard reports to the President, not a governor. That gives the president a clear, long-standing legal path to mobilize the DCNG during unrest (separate from invoking the Insurrection Act).
3) Los Angeles (2025). This summer’s deployment rested on 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to protect federal personnel and property (ICE and federal facilities). A district judge later ruled parts of that mission crossed into law enforcement barred by Posse Comitatus; it’s now on appeal. That’s litigation over how far the authority goes—not proof that any troop use is “illegal” in principle. Read the June 7 White House memo yourself and PolitiFact’s breakdown.
4) Chicago. If a governor doesn’t consent, the lawful path would be the Insurrection Act—especially §§ 252–253—which requires a presidential proclamation to disperse and a showing that ordinary law-enforcement is impracticable. People can argue whether those thresholds are met, but the statute plainly exists and has been used.
Once again, yes my earlier assessments are accurate , it is further important that before you claim these outlandish claims that you have the curiosity to find out the facts. Your dangerous.
It was be nice to think the blame for all of gun violence can be laid at the feet of the technology itself. But it’s also the case that compared to comparably wealthy countries there are large swathes of people (almost all men) who are far more accepting of violence as a solution to disputes. I can assure you that if there were as many guns per capita in Denmark that country wouldn’t have anything near our murder rate.
First, grief and condemnation. What happened to Charlie Kirk in Orem is evil. In a liberal society, political disagreements are settled with speech and votes—not assassination. That norm must be non-negotiable, across all factions.
Second, history. The post’s account of early-modern Europe flattens what historians actually describe. Yes, there were “wars of religion,” but those conflicts mixed creed with power: dynastic, territorial, and commercial rivalries all drove the violence. That’s precisely why classical liberalism matters: it created guardrails (conscience rights, limits on rulers, equal treatment under law) so Catholics and Protestants—and later, broader pluralism—could live together without civil war. Reducing the story to “religion causes slaughter; liberalism stopped it” misses half the picture.
Third, guns and tradeoffs. America’s firearm death toll is horrific by any humane measure. It’s also true that our constitutional tradition protects an armed citizenry as a check on concentrated power and for self-defense. The honest conversation is not “zero guns vs. guns everywhere,” but what combination of enforcement, due process, mental-health interventions, and targeted regulations reduces violence while respecting rights. (Reasonable people will disagree at the margins.)
Finally, fairness. Portraying Kirk as uniquely culpable for “legitimizing violence” while downplaying similar excesses on the left is exactly the asymmetry that keeps pushing people into corners. We can condemn reckless rhetoric wherever it appears and insist on one standard against political violence.
I’m pleading for precision: with our history, with our numbers, and with each other. Lower the heat; raise the argument.
"... our constitutional tradition protects an armed citizenry as a check on concentrated power ..."
Not anymore. The current president has trampled all over the Constitution, with permission from Congress and the Supreme Court, and our highly-armed citizenry have done approximately jack shit about it. In fact, our most highly-armed citizens are largely in favor of concentrated power, as long as it's concentrated with people like them. The idea of armed citizens checking the government is a fairy tale.
Jacob,
If you are going to make such statements, back them up with facts or supplements instead of talking points. To your point, since you don't like things... your ready to throw it out and put whatever fascist ( that is a accurate use of fascism ) desire you have . No - we need guns to protect us from misled and intellectually weak individuals like you because .. your insane. That insanity puts us all at risk because you will be able to justify harm to others based upon your broken value set.
Using soldiers for law enforcement is, in fact, against the law except in times of national emergency (see the Posse Comitatus Act). The president has falsely claimed that an emergency justifies his actions (see the federal military intervention in Los Angeles). In reality, these actions are clearly intended to suppress dissent (see his "declaration of war" against the city of Chicago without even the pretext of some emergency that requires federal military intervention). No "armed citizenry" has come to protect the public against this, so it seems clear to me that all of the talk about the 2nd Amendment protecting against tyranny is just that, talk.
The president's actions here are pretty close to fascism. My opinions, on the other hand, aren't even in the same ballpark as fascism. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I'm an "insane" fascist is indicative to me that it's likely not worth continuing this conversation with you. Have a nice evening.
Brilliant example of backing up your statements by going full insult.
You want facts? We can do facts. I love to cite my sources. But when you lose this argument, I don’t want to hear this bullshit about how the sources aren’t legitimate because they aren’t coming from some echo chamber you are a part of.
Let’s look at Trump.
First he’s a convicted felon. The constitution doesn’t say anything about that because our founders never envisioned such foolishness.
Sending in The national guard regardless of what states want is a violation of the constitution. States rights and all.
Deporting people with no trial - absolutely against the constitution.
Making billions while being in office through crypto. The president can not benefit financially while in office.
Trump literally said he would terminate the constitution if it could fix his election loss. He was responsible for a goddamn insurrection.
He constantly threatens those he perceives as enemies. I’ve lost track of how many times he has encouraged violence against democrats.
He has put grossly inept people into cabinet positions because they are loyalists. Kash Patel? Zero experience in law enforcement and bungled this shooting to the point where even your side was pissed. RFK jr - no medical background whatsoever but he’s now in charge of our health. The guy with a brain worm that caused brain damage, who also has a massive conflict of interest. He’s dead set on proving what creates autism in part because he has several lawsuits against drug companies. If he wins, he takes in millions. That is absolutely illegal.
I’m still not done -
Trump went to China and two days later Ivanka and him got all their patents through.
Israel - he needs Israel to wipe out the Palestinians because he’s been promised prime real estate there to build a resort. He has not tried to hide this.
Again, another conflict of interest and one that can lead to all out war.
Part of fascism is enforcing division between people in a country. It provides an “other” for people to blame, for their lives not being how they would like. Examples : illegal aliens, racism, sexism, hate towards trans people, and the best - it’s the left that is destroying the country.
It’s literally straight out of the fascist playbook.
Hitler offered the Jews after World War One because Germany’s economy was in tatters.
The reason you can’t afford the costs of living is because those Jews have all the money. Let’s solve the “Jewish problem” by getting rid of them. We’ll send them to detainment camps and force them to work as pay back for taking all of our money. On second thought, let’s just kill them! We’ll starve them, do horrible experiments on their bodies and force them to work until they literally die or we get bored and put a bullet in their heads.
We are currently in a recession, headed towards a depression. Let me remind you what happens when economic instability occurs? We blame the other. Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs! Trans people are perverts who are trying to turn our children gay or trans! They are … wait for it, because this was in your lazy insult - mentally ill. They should be locked up in psychiatric wards. Western women are entitled and won’t touch us, they are the reason so many men are lonely! We need to take away their right to vote (Pete Hegseth, project2025). Women have no business being in the workforce. They should stay at home and submit to their husbands and understand that their “biology” is to have and raise children! Plus, if we get rid of all the women in the workforce, us guys will get paid more! #feminismisacancer
All of these things are happening right now. Fascism is taking away the rights people previously had.
Trump has said that he will arrest people that dissent or threaten his hold on power. Ooops who cares about the first amendment?!
I’m tired now, so here’s a link to the Wikipedia that gives a vary derailed analysis of how your team are fascists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism
You should actually read it. You might learn something.
The things that I mentioned can also be googled. I’m not doing the work for you because I already know that all this time I spent writing this means nothing.
Here’s an article about Timothy snider - one of the most respected historians the US has, who wrote a book about fascism titled Tyranny. He has left the US because he knows what is happening.
I recommend you actually read the book because again, you will learn something.
https://macleans.ca/the-interview/timothy-snyder-has-seen-tyrants-like-trump-before/
On the Supreme Court? The latest ruling said it’s ok to profile people based on skin color, language, ect because “probable cause.”
It also stated that throwing citizens into detention is fine, because they will eventually get out. All of this goes against everything this country is about.
There are countless other examples and if you don’t see it, it’s because you don’t want to. The court also has people like Thomas who recieved favors and privileges
(Like vacations and private flights) based on his being on the court. Absolutely illegal and yet he’s still there.
Finally, no one said you can’t have your precious guns. Some of us would like to see people stop being slaughtered because there are more guns than people in our country. We want to address mental health (guess who cut all of the funding for gun violence prevention? 🤔), gutting healthcare to being essentially unusable or so expensive that you can’t afford it - means all of those mentally ill people you hate can’t get any help.
Having red flag laws is fair. Banning ghost guns is smart. Charging the parents of mass shooters because they do nothing- fair and it gives incentive for the parents to be parents because they might end up in prison.
I own guns, btw. Yep, a libtard with a gun, Will wonders never cease! I believe we have a right to own them, but we need to make it harder for people to obtain. Waiting periods, mental health assessments, actual background checks? Seems reasonable to me.
Closing the loophole from buying a gun at a gun show? Seems smart.
Last - the poster you insulted said that guns are useless because they can’t stop fascism. There is no mass uprising about the fact that we have a man in office who walks all over the constitution.
I’m sure you won’t take the time to read this essay but I wrote it anyway because I’m sick of the disingenuous bullshit, the whataboutism, the outright lies.
The left’s ideas, I hate to break it to you, are absolutely against fascism, but again that doesn’t fit your smug narrative.
Can you give me an example of someone on the left who has legitimized violence?
Actual examples, not things you have heard.
Thank you for speaking accurately about Kirk and his behavior, because it’s fucking disgusting watching Newsom and Ezra Klein pretend he was a good faith interlocutor instead of a ghoul who would (AND ALREADY HAS) applaud an assassination attempt on his enemies
I wish death upon no man but his is an obituary that I’m glad to have read.
Jeremiah, a fine piece of writing, but I’m mystified by your footnote. The Kirk tweet linked to has nothing to do with politicizing shootings. It has to do with the murder of Iryna Zarutska, which involved a knife, not a gun.
To people that have more knowledge of gun control: what are some of the more effective steps we can take to prevent these incidents? Too many gun control advocates seem to either call for vibes based measures like bump stock bans or removing guns from the population completely (which is never going to work). But what are things we can actually do that will prevent incidents like this and the school shootings that happen so regularly?
It's three different things:
School shootings - harden targets, restrict coverage of shooters
Assassinations - likely also heavy media contagion but harder to stop
Gun violence in general - prosecute straw purchases, actually enforce existing laws before poisoning the well asking for more
Great article.