[AP] Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Erika Kirk is a daily mass going Catholic so pretty sure you're wrong on that.

 

Meanwhile the GOP is going full big government in response to changing times.

 

That is very surprising considering Christian Nationalism is a very Protestant movement.

Both Catholicism and Protestantism can’t be right.

 

Perhaps you don't properly understand Charlie Kirk.

 

I don’t know about his personal life or his wife, but I know he wasn’t pushing a message of Christ’s love.

I also know why theocracies are generally pretty terrible.

 

Correct.

You can be non-religious and still be a terrible person.

 

Perhaps you don't properly understand Kirks views. You just got caught attributing views to him that are demonstrably false.

 

Well views of his wife’s religion…. But Catholics can also be jerks like Protestants. That doesn’t dismiss the notion that theocracies / Christian Nationalism is a bad thing.

Again, can both Catholics and Protestants be correct?

Kirk was a major proponent of “free speech”….Do you think that was real or Kirk would be happy that his death is being used to silent dissent against his particular views?

 

case in point, Donald J Trump

 

It is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in certain circumstances (you can discriminate legally based upon race if you are deciding who to let into your house, for example). I am saying that preventing private parties from discriminating based on whatever they want to discriminate on is illegal under the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.

It doesn't matter if the idea is good or not, only whether it is Constitutionally sound. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not.

While I understand that you are being sarcastic, those are in fact all true statements.

I am sometimes a very serious person. I am at other times a very jocular person. I contain multitude. There is nothing unserious about the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was blatantly unconstitutional.

Constitutional scholars and libertarians have complained about them constantly; you just weren't paying attention. The fact that there is some nebulous connection to some taxpayer expense (that is likely far more than outweighed by the taxes collected from the business) doesn't give the government carte blanche to impose whatever restrictions it likes (or at least it shouldn't and in fact didn't prior to 1942 and the Wickard v. Filburn decision).

Expediency is pretty much never a good basis upon which to make decisions that last through generations.

It isn't totally fine, it is blatantly unconstitutional. See above why doing bad things because you think it is "necessary" is bad.

It is one of the most important pieces of legislation, but in a terrible way. The farm regulations that led to the Wickard v. Filburn decision were probably more harmful in the long run, but this was a close second. The government (and especially the federal government) should not be in the business of regulating the private actions of private actors. Prevent people from directly harming others. That is an unequivocal good. Punish someone if the cut someone's arm off. To punish someone because they choose what crops to grow and how much or because they chose to serve some customers but not others is far beyond the legitimate scope of government.

The most perfect for libertarian world is the most perfect for human world, because libertarianism is the best state for humans.

In a world with racism, sexism, and classism, there is no need for the 1964 CRA.

Not really, we just understand that freedom doesn't necessarily cater to everyone's whim at every juncture. It is just better than the alternatives. If some people are not allowed to patronize a business, but the government doesn't get involved in who you do business with, that is better than forcing people to do business with those who they don't want to do business with.

I think it would be fantastic, and also governed according to fair principles.

Every store and place of commerce should certainly be allowed to have armed security at the front door, and they should be allowed to shoot thieves. If they were, there would be a lot fewer thieves.

 

Not true, not until Trumpism did people start begging for the freedom to not serve blacks again. If you want to run a business the excludes someone because of the color of their skin, then you do not believe in the concept of a civil society. Why have any laws at all that stop people for hurting one another? Why not just allow murder? Sound ridiculous to you - but what you are arguing for is that some humans can be elevated above others. Some are superior than others based on things like skin color.

If that's the America you fight for, we are enemies.

 

lmao

 

@Nook unbelievable

 

I guess you missed, for example, the gay wedding cake thing. No, freedom of association has never gone away as an issue.

I don't want to run a business at all. I don't want to force other people to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with.

Because that is the only legitimate purpose of the law?

Because no one should be allowed to harm someone else. Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff.

That isn't at all what I am arguing. In fact, I am arguing only that people should not be forced to do business with anyone, and should be allowed to serve whomever they please. Who am I elevating above whom?

It isn't, that is just as far as your ideology allows you to understand what I am saying.

 

The thing that worry me is not this or that political violence. They are still so rare. It is this:

The more I talk about gun violence, the less I have to say | Cognoscenti

My phone buzzed late in the afternoon on December 14, 2011, with a familiar number for a producer from Boston 25 News. I answered the call expecting a request to talk about a timely holiday topic, such as how to handle kids’ tantrums when visiting the in-laws. Instead, the producer made a request I could barely understand. She was sobbing.

“They’ve killed children. Little children,” she said.

It had happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and as she talked through her tears, I got online to look at what she was talking about. The story was still emerging and completely unimaginable.

“Would you be able to come on live tonight at 6?” she asked. “ People are frightened, and it would help them to hear your perspective as a child psychologist. You’ll be able to calm them down.”

I was not an expert in school shootings. Few people were back then. But I did know how to comfort and advise parents after trauma. So I offered some advice.

“Put it into perspective: school shootings are rare.”

“Kids want to know they are safe and the people they love are safe. Reassure them”

“Let your children know that the adults in their world are doing everything they can to keep this from ever happening again.”

“Keep to your routines. Routine is comforting.”

“Answer their questions in an age-appropriate way.”

“Make sure you’re taking care of yourself, too.”

I felt I’d done some good that night.

But after that, the media requests kept coming. There were other school shootings — in Nasvhille, Tennesse, and Uvalde, Texas. And there were shootings that didn’t happen at schools. A music festival in Las Vegas. A nightclub in Orlando. A movie theater in Colorado. The church in Texas. Or was it South Carolina? Maybe both.

Over the last few weeks, there were three more requests — one to speak about a shooting at a Catholic School in Minneapolis, another in Colorado, and — the most recent one — to talk about how to understand our feelings about the murder of Charlie Kirk.

I’m starting to feel at a loss for words because my subject matter expertise and the words I’ve used — the old standby lines — aren’t adequate anymore. These last few weeks have left me speechless.

School shootings, while still statistically rare, are increasing. The average yearly rate of school shootings in the US has increased from 19 per 100,000 students in 1999-2004 to 51 per 100,000 students in 2020-2024. I’ve continued to emphasize the “rare” part, along with the fact that the intense media coverage of school shootings creates a perception of a higher frequency than actually exists. But I leave out the part where the psychological impact of school shooter drills makes every child more aware of the danger. The part where gun-related injuries are the leading cause of death among children ages 1 to 17. And the reality is that if you have a child between the ages of 1 and 19 years, if they lose their life this year, it will most likely be because of a gunshot.

I’ve had to let go of some of the other reassurances, too, especially the one about adults doing everything they can to keep kids safe. We haven’t. We don’t. Whether through our lack of will to elect candidates who will champion gun control or a puzzling deference to a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, we haven’t protected kids from increased school shootings.

Many people have said that we should treat gun violence as a mental health issue. But the vast majority of school shooters are not mentally ill. Only about 25% of mass shootings are associated with non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses (depression, for example) with another approximately 5% related to severe mental illness. Depressed people often don’t have the energy to commit violent crimes, and psychotic people usually have trouble executing an elaborate plan. It’s angry people who kill, particularly angry men with access to firearms.

Regardless, if we take the premise that society should treat gun violence as a psychologist would, then the problem is an easier fix than you might expect: We simply take away the guns.

When I have a potentially violent patient in my office, the first thing I do is to make sure they don’t have access to firearms, knives, pills or a car in an airtight garage. I confirm that they don’t have plans to hurt themselves or anyone else. Unfortunately, the first step in mental health treatment — the step where we discuss violence and the patient’s access to weapons — is the one that is lacking in many states.

During this impossible time, I’ve found myself drawn to less empirically driven advice and more existential concepts. How do we find meaning in life when it seems so uncertain? When we can’t control the rules, how do we create and live by our own values?

We’re not powerless. We can vote. We can demand gun control, like we demanded civil rights. It won’t be easy or quick. But we can pick this issue and vote exclusively on it.

We can be a source of stability. That’s the number-one suggestion I make to parents, but it applies to all of us. Do the things that help you feel stable – the old standbys like exercise, sleep and spending time with loved ones – and the world will seem, well, more stable.

We can’t live as if each day could be our last. That level of intensity is not sustainable. A life where we are constantly thinking this could be the last time we do something we love with someone we love is a hellish existence. Instead, we need to live life as if each day is our first.

Hug our children and partners as if we are seeing them anew. Ask the person you’ve admired for the date. Get a dog. Or a cat. Make the world a better place by being kind, even when kindness is hard. Find the words that represent your experience and speak them.

I’ve learned that when the old words no longer work, the answer isn’t to give up. Or stop speaking. Or reflexively scream at the opposition. The answer is to make the language about these issues a reflection of us — our fears, our priorities, our politics and our hopes — in a way that might shape the future. I’ll keep trying.

 

Given how absolutely inauthentic those messages appeared it is completely believable.

 

Perhaps you’ve addressed this before, and I missed it. Do you consider that absolute, even when it collides with the Commerce Clause (I.e. discrimination that affects interstate commerce)?

 

It's almost insulting how little effort they put into it

Rocket River