You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?

They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.

This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.

If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.

And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.

Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.

Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?

I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.

The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.

I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.

As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.

That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.

> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run.

Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?

[flagged]