Republicans know that gun usage causes mass shootings. This post ignores the fact that Republicans are not wanting to criminalize Tylenol usage in the way people want to criminalize gun ownership.

Just like pregnant women are advised not to take Tylenol, people are mandated by law to not kill innocent people with guns. There is nothing inconsistent.

Increasing the police presence in black neighborhoods does not help save black lives

More police presence reduces number of homicides. This is well-documented. People’s “intuition” is irrelevant.

Now, it also increase more low-level arrests. So if people are wanting to get away with drug possessions, shoplifting, or other low-level crimes, then they are going to have to deal with higher homicide rates. But if they want that exchange, they don’t really care about black lives.

you clearly seem to think the opinions of those personally affected by police and gang-related violence (not all that different, really) don’t.

I trust people to identify their problems, but not to identify the solutions. Many people have problems partially because they keep trying the wrong solutions (eg. buying lotteries tickets to get out of poverty). Experts are often needed for solutions.

The BLM founders are so far removed from the problem in their $6 million dollar mansion, they cannot be expected to understand the problem let alone come up with solutions.

Absolutely. There are reasons to be against BLM while still believing that black lives matter. Examples:

1. It’s primarily an anti-police movement. Many people believe more police will help save black lives.

2. They made zero effort to reduce gang-related homicides which accounts for the majority of black homicides. So their sincere value for black life is questionable.

3. They engage in lots of riots and non-peaceful methods of protesting, many of which destroy black neighborhoods.

They may call them that. it doesn’t make it true.

That’s my point. Most people called a fascist and Nazi today are not actually either of those.

I’m not implying that antifa symbolism alone makes them anarcho-communistic. It’s their actual actions, messaging, and organizing. They do black bloc and they promote a “classless society” on their websites along with anti-capitalist messaging.

My only point on antifa here is that it clearly is not merely “anti-fascist.”

Pro-life people would certainly call their opponents anti-life. Is this different than people on the left calling their opponents fascist? Almost nobody being called fascist today actually supports authoritarianism, at least not in the mainstream.

And as far as Antifa is concerned, it clearly means more than anti-fascism. A big clue: their logo has the flags for anarchism and communism.

So, are people who oppose anarcho-communism all fascists? If not, then opposing Antifa does not make one a fascism supporter.

Then you’re pro-life I take it?

Being against pro-life position is anti-life… ?

Or perhaps, antifa and pro-life actually mean something a bit more?

Most people know better. It’s completely bad faith arguing.

Being against the Patriot Act does not mean you’re not a patriot. Being against Black Lives Matter does not mean you think black lives don’t matter. Same can be said about Antifa’s actions; plenty of reasons to oppose them that do not involve supporting facism.

Also, there’s the common fallacy of composition / division. Being against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t mean you support segregation. Being against the Big Beautiful Bill does not mean you’re against child tax credits.

College educated people know better, but still leverage dishonesty for political points. It’s tiring.

Should organize under the name Anti-pedo, then just go and commit a bunch of violence. If people complain, they must be pedophiles.

Using what definition of irony?

A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.

Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you’d expect him to die.

True. Most were against the violence, but many supported it.

Also, the country was founded using political violence.

He was reckless, no doubt. Being around a dangerous mob always is.

Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.

Very true.

Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he’s racist. That’s why he shot a couple white people.

My personal feelings do not inform this argument. What I say is wrong or it isn’t, regardless of my feelings about people or topics. I routinely argue against pro-choice arguments, for example, not because I’m pro-life, but because so many pro-choice arguments are bad. I actually support unfettered abortion and even limited legalized infanticide similar to Peter Singer, but that’s quite irrelevant to arguments I make about abortion.

I guess people in the military aren’t willing to die for anything either. After all, they wear body armor and use weapons against their enemies.

You can’t be so stupid as to think a willingness to die is the same as trying to die.

Me liking women and non-white people isn’t even relevant. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, then don’t.

Nothing I’ve seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.

It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the “price worth paying” for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would’ve only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?

Not being mad about a fascist who advocates for public shootings as a necessity for society getting popped

So you don’t think he deserved it? Aren’t celebrating it?

I’m not opposed to public executions in general. The only problem I see with Kirk’s logic (which was that it would deter children from crime), is that only extreme violent crimes like murder would be deserving of execution. And allowing children to see killers getting killed isn’t exactly going to deter them from typical crimes, just murder.

If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.

So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?

This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.

Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.

Nobody would be “celebrating” him if people didn’t try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.