What Legacy Does Trump Leave?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I'm not celebrating. A man who thought that it was acceptable that kids had to die every year to protect his right to own firearms, was killed by a firearm. He was OK with your kid dying, but never considered it could be him.

Or maybe he would be okay with dying so that others could continue to own firearms. Maybe God wanted this.

It sucks that he died. It sucks more that he had a family. He was an a**hole, but the a**hole had a wife and kid.

And now he'll be a martyr. We don't learn. You don't kill the Charlie Kirks. You just create more Charlie Kirks.
 
chansen said:
I'm not celebrating. A man who thought that it was acceptable that kids had to die every year to protect his right to own firearms, was killed by a firearm. He was OK with your kid dying, but never considered it could be him.

Or maybe he would be okay with dying so that others could continue to own firearms. Maybe God wanted this.

It sucks that he died. It sucks more that he had a family. He was an a**hole, but the a**hole had a wife and kid.

And now he'll be a martyr. We don't learn. You don't kill the Charlie Kirks. You just create more Charlie Kirks.
Click to expand...
I thinking of asking if anyone knew anything about what his comments were, following the school/ church shooting a few weeks ago. I didn’t even want to look it up. That quote tells me what I wanted to know.
 
Charlie‘s past quote about gun deaths and second amendment rights is currently going viral amid the incident.


This is a transcript of what he said before and after that selective quote:

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
Click to expand...
 
WhyCzar said:
Charlie‘s past quote about gun deaths and second amendment rights is currently going viral amid the incident.


This is a transcript of what he said before and after that selective quote:
Click to expand...

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
Click to expand...

FFS, another hot take designed to look impressive and make it sound like the speaker is the only person who cares about kids. All these Charlie Kirks, Jordan Petersons and that other young dork whose name I forget do this.

Why not armed guards in schools?

  1. No money for teachers, but money for guards? With education standards slipping, home lives crumbling, food insecurity, mental health issues rampant, etc., there are so many things to spend money on to prevent kids from wanting to shoot up their schools in the first place. If we care about the kids, why can't we care about them before they spiral out of control? Doesn't that prove the shooter's point? Nobody cares about you until you pick up a gun.
  2. Uvalde showed that police themselves are hesitant to confront a shooter. Security guards are supposed to do that? Some minimum wage guy is going to storm a classroom where the gunman is? What movies have you been watching?
  3. Since when are security guards immune to mental health distress? And you gave each of them a gun and a master key for the school. Great.
There are plenty of reasons.

The idea that the cure for gun violence is more guns is so f***ing insane. It's been dressed up as "caring for children" and thrown out by people who look for quick sound bites on Tiktok to sound like they are owning liberal audiences. Schools are supposed to be safe spaces, not because of guns, but because people care and kids can get help. Throwing guns at schools is not a solution, it's escalation. It's starting an arms race. It's a kneejerk reaction with no thought to prevent anything that causes these tragedies.
 
That government is cutting all the social programs that give marginalized people a chance and replacing that with guns and actual war posturing (eg. his recent extrajudicial violence/ debatable act of war on the high seas coupled with sending the National Guard in to “clean up” cities) to keep everybody in line when poverty and desperation take over. And then it divides people in poor and marginalized communities against each other - it doesn’t protect or benefit them. And it’s not “smaller government” it’s actually bigger, more power hungry, more militarized - that’s just where the focus shifts.
 
Last edited:
Putin weighed in, with his geopolitical monkey wrench. I hate this s**t. I don’t want to pay attention to it, but how can we not?

This situation is now going to dominate the media for the foreseeable future, I suspect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top