fawkesalbus

This is an amazing thread and dialog. I commend both of you for keeping it civil and respectful (exactly how Charlie would have wanted). Just two things to add:

1. Driving, cleaning agents and all the other examples are effectively assumed to be rights but they are not guaranteed by the US constitution. The second amendment on the other hand is very explicit. So it only makes the case stronger for the second amendment (~10k non gang violence, non suicide related gun deaths vs ~40k deaths from car accidents per year, although even one death is too many imho)

2. I would recommend listening to the full comment from Charlie about “some gun deaths are inevitable”. He started with the premise that the US already has a lot of guns and in a country with so many guns, you can’t have ZERO gun related deaths. And then went on to say what he said about some gun deaths being rational/prudent etc. So the spirit of what he was saying wasn’t that some people were expendable but more so that from a practicality standpoint you can’t expect to not have any gun related deaths at all.

In another video he talks about gun confiscation/ forcing Americans to give up their guns (at gun point ;) ?) and how that won’t work either but that’s besides the point.

Once again thanks for such a thoughtful dialog. Really appreciate it!

Which example are you referencing here?

Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.

He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).

He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.

This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).

He was interfering with the arrest, recording video etc. At least he didn’t get assassinated for exercising his first amendment rights like Charlie.

> Do I find Charlie's death hilarious considering his stance on gun laws? Yes. In fact, I think maybe we should come up to something similar to the Herman Cain award, but for gun lovers.

No one actively made fun of the deaths of school kids or anyone on the left - the Hortmanns or the injury to Paul Pelosi. No one actually celebrates those tragedies.

And yet here you are actively saying you find Charlie’s death hilarious. This is shameful and no sane person should feel happy that a person who advocated for free speech and nothing else has been assassinated.

Also please read the guidelines that @dang has posted at the very beginning of this thread.

May God help you find more peace and less hatred.

Fair points. I was looking at it more from the perspective of star power and name recognition at such a young age. Also the fact that Taylor Swift causes irrational excitement among her followers and went out of her way to more or less endorse Kamala for president.

I assumed that pretty much the vast majority of conservatives knew about Charlie. I oscillate between center left (e.g pro abortion with few restrictions, in favor of assault weapons restrictions etc) and center right (e.g pro second amendment, pro free speech, against DEI etc) and disagree with Charlie on a lot of things but even I found his videos useful and enlightening.

Regarding Charlie being just one of many conservative speakers, that’s like saying Taylor is just one of many singers.

And David Hogg is no where close to being there yet. He capitalized on the horrifying stoneman shootings to propel himself to some name recognition but I don’t think he (or Harry Sisson who I find similar to Hogg) could hold a candle to Charlie on a debate around our constitution, history etc.

Just my observations/opinions.

Charlie Kirk was like the Taylor Swift of the conservative world. Big loss for free speech in America. RIP

Yep and free speech only applies to specific people. If you are conservative you should totally expect to be shot and killed for saying what you believe. Trump was lucky, Charlie wasn’t.

You are correct. I reread how due process is supposed to work and the fifth and fourteenth amendments clearly say that it applies to “persons” and not just citizens or legal immigrants or anything like that. The requirements are more relaxed for immigration courts though e.g you have to pay for your own lawyer etc

That’s fair. And if they can be turned away from the border, then they can be deported too.

Many people here will tell you that cartoons represent violence, some types of speech represent violence etc. France no longer has free speech rights unless it is coming from the left

Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.

Indiscriminately is a loaded term. There is always some reasonable suspicion. Usually law enforcement always knows which pockets of a city, neighborhood have more illegal activity and can act based on that prior information.

But this “right to go before a judge” can be misused because of how long the process can take. All immigrants are required by law to be able to prove their legal status, so the right to due process, fair trial etc becomes complicated if one is here illegally

It can be argued that a lot of this is falling into the slippery slope fallacy.

Also the media doesn’t always report the full story. Often the people arrested have some small/medium offense from years ago.

Unlikely to happen to legal immigrants.