The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

A man who stood for traditional family values and was a positive influence on America's youth has been brutally murdered.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-turning-point-usa/

"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." - Charlie Kirk, 2023 (https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1643977032509067272)

Charlie Kirk died living his values; the same values he espoused any time a classroom of third-graders is murdered.

Sadly, there is No Way To Prevent the out-of-control gun violence in this country.

I think Charlie Kirk may have been killed by his jilted gay lover.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493/)

^^^^^

I'm shocked and appalled that you actually think his death is ok.   Or that it's ok for someone to be killed because their political ideology is different from yours.

From my limited time on this board, I figured you were a leftist piece of shit.   Now I know for certain you are.   

Political assassinations are bad.  This will be an accelerant of other bad things.

But Charlie Kirk was a huge piece of shit.

I can understand why my repeating of the things Charlie Kirk has said to other victims of violence (and their survivors) would give you the impression that I'm a disgusting POS.

Because Charlie Kirk was a disgusting POS.

He was a young husband, father, youth leader, and a supporter of traditional family values.   If that makes him a disgusting POS to you, then you've got something messed up in your head.

Lots of shitty people have families.  I don't like people getting shot, in general.  I certainly don't like people getting gunned down in front of their kids.  But Kirk spouted hate and hurt people every day with his carrying water for this fascist regime.  I don't see how him having kids absolves him of any of that.

I never heard of this guy until yesterday. I’m going to need to look him up to see things that he has said. The differing options of the type of man he was is mind blowing.

I just want to be insanely clear:

It's bad that he's shot.  I'm not happy he's dead.  This is bad for America.  I'm sorry for any of you who are feeling anger and pain and sadness about his death.  You don't deserve that.



But I'm not going to pretend that he wasn't a fascist and I'm not going to white-wash his shittiness.  He was a bad person who sewed hate and made a brand off of being a professional instigator and provocateur at the cost of other people's lives.

I also always make a point to let facts come out.  Motivations for the type of person who is willing to give up their life are rarely cut and dry.

He might be shitty to you.  But if you dig deeper, a lot of the alleged stuff was either rumors, or taken out of context.   An example is his comments on the George Floyd situation.  I agree with Kirk that Floyd should not be held up as a national hero.  The guy was a thug who had a bad rep.  Granted, that doesn't justify the cop kneeling on his neck and he most certainly didn't deserve to die.  But he should never be recognized as a hero or martyr of any type.

Also the allegations of antisemitism are complete horseshit.   He stood with Israel.

I know all about Charlie Kirk.  He's not new to me.  I hear clips of his bullshit on a very regular basis.  He brand was to be an eloquent asshole to people like me.

I also don't think that George Floyd was a hero, nor a martyr;  he was a victim.   

As I have already referenced, when there was a politically-motivated home invasion at Nancy Pelosi's house and her 80something year-old husband was hit in the head with a hammer by the assailant, the take from wonderful father and family values enjoyer Charlie Kirk (along with many other conservatives) was "Some patriot should bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker so we can ask him if he is his jilted gay lover."

I refuse to play the respectability politics game with these ghouls.

ETA: This has nothing to do with Kirk being a conservative traditional family values blahblahblah.  Charlie Kirk personally had zero regard for other victims of political violence and had no interest in any serious attempts to curtail the epidemic of gun crime in America.  He died living his values.

While I don't like what Nancy Pelosi did while she was in office, her husband didn't deserve to get hit on the head.   And as for Kirk's comment, you fail to reference that he said it "tongue in cheek" along with a comment of "How come Pelosi's assailant is being held without bond, while in Chicago, someone can commit murder and be out the next day"

And as for the epidemic gun problem, it's real simple.  Put more guns in the hands of responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill... like that guy that shot and killed innocent kids in a Catholic school because he was in his feelings about not having a vagina.

Oh, well in that case:

When I suggested Charlie Kirk's assailant may be his jilted gay lover (a comment which you said shocked and appalled you, while confirming your suspicion that I am a piece of shit), that was actually "tongue-in-cheek," just like you claim it was when Charlie Kirk said it about Paul Pelosi.

Since your defense of Kirk saying the same thing was surely honest and in good faith (and not, say, just making excuses for terrible people who you happen to agree with politically), I look forward to your apology for that vile smear of my character.

On the topic of people being undeservedly recognized as national heroes (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-will-award-charlie-kirk-the-presidential-medal-of-freedom): when George Floyd was murdered, then-President Trump didn't order flags across the nation to be flown at half-mast.  Nor was such an order issued in June of this year when a Democratic state legislator from Minnesota and her husband were assassinated in their home by a right-wing lunatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators) who had also shot a second Democratic state legislator and his wife earlier the same day.

Looks like they caught the shooter.

22 year old white male Utah state student who's dad is a 27 year sheriff's deputy and registered republican. Who got a rifle as a birthday gift at 16.

While you can't blindly assume motive based on demographics, this has the hallmark of trumpy on trumpy violence. That'll mess up the narrative that the shooter was an illegal immigrant atheist trans antifa member.

Or it could be he was rebelling against his dad and everything his dad stood for.   Teens and young adults tend to do that more often these days.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, I don't think it's all that helpful to try to paint the shooter as their guy or our guy.  It isn't likely to work that way.  These are radicalized weirdos who are likely not going to follow a specific ideology and are going to have their own thing going on.  There may be some intersecting ideas and they may use some political talking point as justification, but something in them was bubbling up.

Apparently the shooter is one of the Nick Fuentes-aligned Groyper movement, who hate Kirk because they think he's a fake conservative who supports The Jew (i.e. Israel).  In other words, Kirk was killed by someone who believed he wasn't far enough to the right.

So now we're going to hear a lot less about the vile Democrats who basically put a hit out on Kirk with their inflammatory rhetoric and more about this troubled lone wolf who was obviously mentally ill.

This story has lost its propaganda value for Republicans and will be out of the news in a week.

I pray you're right...getting tired of my MAGA family members screaming like it was a roving band of trannies that took out Charlie...and now they're coming for the rest of us God-fearing 'Mericans.

And here we go:

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60b55463f5fa37c427a770c9420bdbdea67225c151f6078f463af1b5b9a1cc78.png?w=800&h=526)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075215393993523230/1416259157107019908/image.png?ex=68c6319f&is=68c4e01f&hm=d33b3c80e385f1f7a64b1bda4260a72faee5236454f4a0813ca4ef0dbc8e86bd)

It's full-on Thoughts & Prayers time, people!
Now that it looks like Charlie Kirk was killed because he wasn't fascist enough for today's Republican base, there are going to be some hard pivots from the spicy takes of yesterday.  Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) was visibly devastated (https://x.com/DOC323123/status/1966540206007619734) that he couldn't blame this on an immigrant, despite his fervent prayers for it to be so.

But in times of crisis and strife, a troubled nation looks to its resolute leader, who boldly stands tall and, with a stiff upper lip, tells them:
"I couldn't care less (https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1966556015500947624)."

I was right.  He was going against everything his dad stood for.

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1966612995691151543?s=19

According to Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/charlie-kirks-assassin-lived-transgender-partner-who-now-cooperating-fbi-sources.amp), Tyler Robinson was in a relationship with a transgender woman.

So I imagine we've seen the last of the "soft focus" stories and it's going to be crackdown on transgenders time (despite the fact that it wasn't a transgender person who shot him).

I'll tell you what kind of crackdown is going on.   A crackdown on celebrating and glorifying this type of behavior.   I'm seeing reports left and right of people all over the country losing their jobs  because they posted something on social media celebrating Kirk's assassination.

How is quoting the deceased disrespectful?  At every funeral and memorial service I have ever attended included quotes from the decreased. It is perfectly respectful to quote Kirk's position on gun and political violence.

You mean a crackdown on what is called "free speech" when conservatives do it.

Again, Charlie Kirk and the rest of the right didn't lose their jobs when they suggested that the violent home invasion at Nancy Pelosi's house was perpetrated by a jilted gay lover.

Free speech only protects you from the government coming after you.   It doesn't protect you from other consequences.   Same with free expression. 

You're specifically talking about the First Amendment, not "free speech."  And this is how I know:

House Probes Spotify Over Censorship After “Disinformation” Controversies (https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-probes-spotify-over-censorship-after-disinformation-controversies)
Federal Trade Commission Launches Inquiry on Tech Censorship (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/federal-trade-commission-launches-inquiry-tech-censorship)
Gina Carano rejoices over win for free speech as Disney settles Mandalorian firing with groveling statement (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14981367/gina-carano-win-against-disney-mandalorian-firing.html)
Google Accused of Shadow Banning Christian and Conservative Content (https://vocal.media/journal/google-accused-of-shadow-banning-christian-and-conservative-content)

Spotify is not "the government."
Disney is not "the government."
Facebook, Google, and Twitter are not "the government."
Yet conservatives whine incessantly about their free speech rights being violated if they get kicked off of a tech platform just for saying Jews are subhuman.

True.  But people are getting fired from government jobs for pointing out the irony of Kirk getting shot while giving a speech advocating unfettered gun access.

So his parents are to blame for Charlie being dead? I know that's not what you said, but let's be clear, Charlie's dead because a young kid had easy access to a gun, found out Charlie was coming to his college, got on a roof, pointed the gun at Charlie and pulled the trigger. That's about as much as we know about the shooter, the rest is speculation. I'm just surprised that no one has said it's video games that killed Charlie....yet.

Charlie on the other hand has a long history of making enemies. No one deserves what Charlie got, but even Charlie knew that people are inevitably going to die when everyone has easy access to weapons. He said it was necessary to keep his 2nd amendment rights. He knew exactly what could happen to him and he was ok with it. You either agree with that thinking or it's a tragedy that he's dead, but you can't believe both.

Why would you even think his parents are to blame?    The suspect is 22 years old and unless he either has a felony conviction or a restraining order against him, he can legally purchase and access a firearm.   

I don't, but people often look for someone or something to blame when just as often as not, there's really noone and nothing to blame, just some stupid act of violence.

And if there were background checks in place, maybe he wouldn't have been able to legally own a gun. In this case nothing probably would have prevented him from owning a gun, but I'd still rather have the laws in place rather than what we have now. There's no harm in having some laws that restrict who can lawfully own a gun. The ones that are in place now are inadequate.

His parents definitely had a hand in making sure this young man was trained to effectively use this weapon of war.  No private citizen needs to be able to kill someone at 200 yards in self defense.  And Charlie Kirk would have desperately fought any attempt to ensure that Tyler Robinson did not have access to or training with the weapon that was used in Kirk's murder.

Oops, I'd better be careful...

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e42d02d9061be5942a6fd48ed3208791af7fb40d2f5185915ff27a900d43b1c.png?w=800&h=458)

I don't know if this guy was a hunting background but being able to shoot at 200 yards for that is very plausible. It really isn't that difficult anyway for a recreational shooter. I have hit a 20 ounce soda bottle at 100 yards with an open site.

What sort of sick psychopath would celebrate a cold blooded murder?

The sort of person who would say things like:
"I don't care that he's dead."
"He's not a hero."
"He's a scumbag."
"He shouldn't be celebrated"?

Charlie Kirk was this sort of person. Talking about the murder of George Floyd.

No one needs a weapon that can kill at 200 yards "for self defense."  That was my point.

I've done the same thing.


The crazy thing about the George Floyd story is that when the court pronounced Derrick Chauvin guilty, he immediately turned around and put his hands behind his back.   Had George Floyd done the same thing when told to do so, then this wouldn't even be a story.  Because he'd still be alive today.

And had Charlie Kirk not taken up a career radicalizing young people with lies, he'd still be alive today.

See, blaming murder victims can go both ways.

 And your point means what exactly? I don't see why self defense is even in the discussion. Is it that the type of firearm should be banned?

Yes.

Not sorry to let the facts get in the way of your fictionalized version of events but Floyd was in handcuffs when Chauvin murdered him. 

In my town the police station and fire department are next door to each other.  The police department's flag is at full mast, the fire department at half staff. 

You know you're just spinning your wheels here don't you? I did it for years and there's just no point other than to state your opinion and go about your business. "Most" of the people you're arguing with on this site are radical leftists and just want to argue because they need the supply whether it's positive or negative.



That's hilarious coming from a self described "radical leftist" LMFAO. What age were you when you began being radicalized? Before this happened I didn't even know who Charlie Kirk was. But after watching some of his stuff, you seem to be immensely more radical in your views. Looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.


LOL, 1st they want to ban "assault weapons", which might I add is a made up political term that targest mostly cosmetic features for some reason. Now they want to ban a bolt action rifle designed 127 years ago. The goal posts move as much as their lack of emotional control. Fortunatley, we have a constitution and SCOTUS in place to protect the rights of the law abiding citizens.

Anyhow, hope everyone is doing well. And remember all you have is time and it's probably a not good idea to waste a lot of if it aguing with people you disagree with. You'll never change their mind and you'll never get your time back.

It is a hunting rifle. Just get to the point and say you would prefer all guns be banned.

The bottom line is this.  If you are stopped by an officer, do what they say.   It makes things much easier.   If Floyd had followed instructions, then it would've never gotten to the point where Chauvin put a knee on his neck.

That's only true up to a point. If an officer is telling you to do something that's clearly not within his rights to tell you to do (which we know has happened many times by reviewing footage of officers own body cam) you have every right to refuse. I'm not saying that has anything to do with George Floyd, I don't really know that much about the case, the officers might have been completely within their rights while putting him in handcuffs. Putting a knee on his neck while in handcuffs clearly crossed the line though regardless of what Floyd was doing at the time.

Cops can be wrong too and if history is any judge they often overstep their own boundaries. They are not allowed to use force to get you to comply if the request is not lawful and even if the request is lawful, using force should be a last resort and only enough force to get you to comply and nothing else.

I think there is some room for some forms of shotguns with short-range ammo that won't go through the wall of your house and kill your neighbor's kid, nor will they be able to snipe someone from a rooftop hundreds of yards away.

But ultimately, if the US joined the rest of the developed world and banned (nearly) all guns, I'd be happy with that, too.  People in Canada seem to survive just fine without a full arsenal at their command.

There is zero evidence to support that statement. 

There's plenty of evidence.  It's called common sense.   You don't get violent with police officers and they won't be violent with you.

Philando Castile
Tamir Rice
John Crawford III
etc.

Again, it is incredibly poetic that those who are wringing their hands and clutching their pearls about leftists insisting Charlie Kirk deserved to be murdered are happy to matter-of-factly state that George Floyd is responsible for his own murder.  Charlie Kirk himself said this.

Philando Castile- Had a gun in the car and the officer thought he was reaching for it.

Tamir Rice- Waved a realistic looking toy airsoft gun at the officer

John Crawford III- Was brandishing a BB gun at customers in a WalMart.   

Unfortunate cases for all three, but again, common sense comes into play here.   If you brandish a weapon or something that resembles a weapon at a police officer, you are going to get shot.

So if the police think you have a weapon (even if you don't), your life is forfeit.
"common sense"

George Floyd's murderer was convicted of murder and you're still happily defending his killing.
If anyone on the left defended Tyler Robinson the way you're defending Derek Chauvin, you would be throwing a fit.  This is how we know all the conservative crocodile tears about "disgusting leftists outrageously praising Charlie Kirk's murder" are entirely hollow; you aren't even shy about insisting that George Floyd deserved to be murdered.

All three of the guys you mentioned had weapons.   And all three happened to be unfortunate accidents that could've been avoided with common sense.   You're comparing that to a malicious cold blooded murder. 

We are not the same.

Are you, a Second Amendment fan, saying that merely holding something that looks like a gun is enough cause to be executed?  That no one with common sense would be armed in public?  Give me a break.  None of these individuals ever pointed a gun at the police, or anything like it.  The mere fact that they might have had a gun (two of them did not, and the third was following instructions to produce his license) is a death sentence in your "common sense" world.

Let me guess: the "malicious cold blooded murder" you are referring to is NOT the one where a handcuffed and fully restrained man was slowly and intentionally suffocated to death on camera.
You are absolutely fine with THAT malicious cold-blooded murder.

It looks like Jimmy Kimmel got cancelled over 'insensitive' Charlie Kirk comments.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-18/jimmy-kimmel-live-cancelled-indefinitely/105787192

Charlie Kirk was all about supporting freedom of speech...and anyone who says otherwise IS FIRED!

Common sense says to keep your hands where the officer can see them.   If you have something that looks like a gun, don't be waving it around or brandishing it at others. 



Now you're just being snarky.

Are we still talking about Charlie Kirk?  If he was only a second grader we would have sent out thoughts and prayers and moved on my now. 

I tend to agree with you on gun control to a point, but...reading your posts, I have to ask. Have you ever gone hunting? Took a .22 out plinking targets in the woods? Just curious...

No, but I do own a compound bow that I've used at an archery range.

^^^ Then I am guessing that you will (or have, or do) find it nearly impossible to relate to most gun owners.. That explains your position quite a bit.

I think that's part of the problem.

I was talking with a friend yesterday about the political alignment of Kirk's shooter, and I mentioned that whether he turns out to be a leftist or a groyper, his conservative family is the source of his immersion in gun culture, giving him access to and training with the kinds of weapons he used to murder Kirk.  And my buddy said, "Oh, are we also going to blame whoever taught him to breathe?", to which I replied, "Are we seriously comparing learning how to use a gun to learning how to breathe?"

America has a deadly problem with the culture of guns and gun ownership; one that is unique to us along all industrialized countries.  It is the reason why Charlie Kirk spent his last breaths on this earth defending the right of people like his killer to have unfettered access to as many guns as they please.  It is the reason why the leading cause of death for children in this country is gunfire.

If Charlie Kirk were a conservative in Canada, or Australia, or England, he would still be alive today.