Scalia’s Heller ruling — and the decisions that followed — didn’t just reshape gun laws; they transformed political disagreements into open-season assassinations…
This sentence - "The vast majority of Americans want rational gun control laws instead of this Wild West insanity." - spawned two thoughts:
1. As long as money, handed out by the NRA on behalf of the gun industry & others, speaks louder than words; and as long as the courts are in the hands of Republicans, it matters not at all what the vast majority of Americans want.
2. Even the Wild West wasn't this wild. I've never read of a school being shot up in Dodge City or Tombstone....
Good points. Now we need to take these “two thoughts” to the next level - a critical analysis of how these ideas and related conditions occur? We would do well not to take anything for granted, including current conditions or culture that appear to create or support the social problems we are concerned about. More to the point, the greater our understanding of the social processes that have brought us to this moment in our history, the greater our collective Power to solve these problems, and remake society to better fit our shared ideals.
To start with, why does money speak louder than words”? It’s a mistake to just assume this as a fact - money, and the people who have large amounts of it, have not always held such a positive status & meaning in American society as they seem to have to have today. . It wasn’t until the 1980s that pro-wealth and wealthy people messaging became more prominent and popular in the US. In what appears to have been a highly successful PR scheme, this messaging seems to be positively correlated with a significant change from the historical American middle class’s distrust, if not disgust, with the decadent rich. Remember the “Lifestyle’s of the Rich and Famous”?
As Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Economy took hold of American Corporations beginning in the 1980s, remaking the American economy from an institution that functions for Society and the People to a mechanism that would ultimately transfer tens of trillions of dollars from the workers whose labor earned that money to the wealthiest shareholders, the “anyone can be rich, even you, if you ‘work’ hard enough, (or at least play the market right)” propaganda grew. This messaging became increasingly common in our culture: from movies and music to “get rich for dummies” books & lectures. It didn’t take long before many middle class Americans were supporting policy that enriched the wealthy, thinking they too might become rich and would want the government to help them keep more of their money for themselves. The American People became so effectively persuaded of more positive attitudes towards wealth and he wealthy, they seemed to be blind to the causes of their own economic stressors.
It was all quite genius, and I’m sure, quite deliberate (whether it was planned ahead, or just timely opportunism). The call to “run everything like a business,” first amplified by the Reagan Campaign, and before long, accepted by people on both sides of aisle, has supported the selling off of government services to the highest bidder, a great trick that has only increased the costs of services for the taxpayers while transferring tax dollars into investor accounts.
“Run it like a business” sounded so sensible to the American People who were simultaneously being convinced that paying taxes was a form of economic oppression, that few seemed cognizant of the fact that by business, proponents of this approach really meant “run it” like a predatory, punitive & “profit before people” corporation. In fact, there seemed to be little public discussion of the differences between the kind of local and regional businesses that people in mid-twentieth century America were more likely to have interacted with, and the increasingly powerful, “to-big-to-fail” international corporate conglomerates whose prevailing practice of ”any means are justified by the objective of more profit” that came to define what “run it like a business” actually meant. As a result, there was likely a convenient (from the position of the Shareholder class) gap between the what The People thought they were supporting and what was actually happening as the corporatization and privatization of government & social institutions grew.
Pro-corporate, pro-wall-street and pro-wealth propaganda convinced many Americans to embrace the assumption that the corporatization of social services would to lower costs, lower tax bills and leave more money in their own pockets. Instead, Local, State and Federal governments were paying the same or more for lower quantity and quality of services that too often ended up costing the People more in the long run (tax bills & costs of the consequences of declining services), while making private contractors richer.
I don’t mean to suggest that before all this, money didn’t matter to people; rather, I’d argue that up until the 1970s and 80s, money was not seen as more important than other values like integrity, decency, and our Democratic Republic Constitutional government. And the wealthy were distrusted, their lifestyles judged as overly-indulgent, self-centered, superficial and immoral.
In sum, the successful propaganda of celebrating wealth and the ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous, helped smooth the way to the slow but progressive investor takeover of American Institutions that helped turn millionaires into billionaires while pushing more and more people in America into economic uncertainty/instability and weakening the bonds of communities and society. And these were the outcomes, the change in social conditions and attitudes, accompanied by the political invisibility of those people who were economically and socially left behind and their emerging disillusionment with the expansion of civil rights and growing anger over their own economic troubles, that laid the groundwork for the eventual rise of a divisive authoritarian, even fascist, politics.
Is it surprising that certain financial and political interests would also begin challenging the values of unity and collective American Interests, while pushing a more Hobbesian view of Freedom- every person for themselves? Sadly, the latter is, fundamentally, contrary to the Ideals upon which the vision (if not the reality) of the newly Liberated nation of America. But for those who are addicted to MORE - more money and more power - this type of anti-social self-interest became a very useful tool as they grew their power and wealth.
Enlightenment Philosophers like Locke and Spinoza argued that Hobbes view of natural freedom (a very basic, in the moment Freedom to act -even against all others- in one’s immediate self-interests) was incompatible with the stable society on which modern society, and certainly the Liberated and Free Society they, and later, the American Founders envisioned.
It’s impossible to create a unified and rational society that produces the modern human capable of thought and reason, if every individual is driven solely by ‘in the moment’ self-interest to act, without constraint nor concern for others, to satisfy their immediate wants. In fact, the human society, in which human survival has always depended on (as individuals, human beings were not, and still aren’t, constructed to survive very well in our own; our success in surviving and adapting over the 1-3 million years was due to our social nature).
As for the “Wild West” everyone man for himself image that some people, including, ironically, relatively pampered super-rich investors, use to justify their destructive self-interest, you make a good point - as a rule, people weren’t shooting up schools (although, in reality, there weren’t that many public schools in the west before the late 1800s). But it is also the case that the rate of survival for pioneers and settlers in the West was much higher for those people who lived near neighbors that would come together to help each other out (ie “raising” barns) and to survive dangerous threats than for those individualists who set out to do it all on their own.
Sure, there were gunfighters, bank robbers and all-around bad characters in the old West (just like we have today), who moved West for similar reasons as the others (ie escaping the rules, laws, and social norms that came with settled towns and cities) but with very different objectives. Which is why, eventually, the typical freedom seeking homesteaders, ranchers and pioneers who went West to escape the constraints of settled society, and take advantage of the “wide open spaces”( which they assumed was ready for the taking, never mind the indigenous people who had lived in those lands for thousands of years), would petition to be designated a US territory, and eventually state, so that they qualified for the protection of the Marshall Service and Army, and could find security under the resulting laws and regulations.
Whatever fantasies these folks had of being free and unencumbered by society, its rules and limitations, they soon learned that not everyone seeking this kind of environment was decent or respectful of other’s property or rights. It was hard enough for them to violently take and maintain control over their land in the face of Indigenous people’s resistance, but they also had to cope with robbers, roaming gangs of criminals and neighboring ranchers who believed that they had the right to claim and violently protect as much range land as they wanted when a bunch of “sod busters” (homesteaders) started putting up fences & using “their” water.
It didn’t take long for these freedom seeking farmers and ranchers to yearn for the law and order they left behind back east. The began by hiring sheriffs and (at least trying) to establish gun-free towns, then sought out the social order of being recognized by the American government as an official territory, then State. Aside from the few true individualists who preferred the isolation and independence of the wilderness, the West was “won” first by the murder/genocide against native Americans, and then, soon after, reproducing the social order pioneers and ranchers originally tried to escape.
In short (well, kind of, I do have a tendency to get carried away once I start writing), fantasies of wealthy lifestyles awaiting us all, and the hyper-individualism of the so-called “self-made,” self-interested rich man were evocative components of the “shareholder economy” propaganda. Knowing where these ideas come from, and how they have been used to ease the way of wealthy investors as they enriched themselves via the labor and tax-dollars of The People in America provides us with important clues as to how best to counter both the propaganda & the corporatization of our country, and even how to create a counter-narrative to break through the propagandized mindset of The American People (largely by focusing on the most persuasive & evil stove facts relating to The Peoples shared interests & the actual costs & consequences of our corporatized society).
That which society constructs, even within an increasing unequal balance of power, can likewise be deconstructed and remade. As Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other’s we refer to as America’s Founders believed, knowledge (based on Free Inquiry/scientific methods, reason, & verifiable evidence) is power, not indoctrination. Where Knowledge is obstructed or controlled by the ruling classes, propaganda & indoctrination thrive, and the full potential of The Power of the People in pursuit of social and personal Liberty and Freedom are stifled.
The reason money became a mantra in the US is people with money usually beat the system and that appealed to those without power and also those who wanted the luxury rich people enjoyed.
The minutiae in which you devolve in your essay is repetitive of the premise that people dealt with the power of money- whatever their cause; therefore without making a concise conclusion summing up your lengthy diatribe, does not constitute a finished idea.
Hey, just sharing my thoughts, my response to the previous comment.
As for your conclusion, I find it rather ahistorical and vague. Again, longitudinal research that has followed American’s values, mores and attitudes at least through the 1900s (with some richer studies of the middle class and how they see and live in the world), noting a very significant shift in the MC’s views of wealth and the wealthy post mid-century - from a highly critical view to one in which wealth and the wealthy are seen more positive light. Since the stinking rich have been getting their own way throughout human history, your view does not explain why the shift in American attitudes about wealth and the wealthy occurred (I’m not saying that middle class didn’t have any interest in prosperity; they just had any number of equally, or more, valued qualities and outcomes).
I believe the ‘shift in attitude’ towards money is rooted in the historical trajectory of neoliberalism, whether we like it or agree with it; here it is, and it has caught on with individuals who were of the ilk you keenly note with specific American values, mores, and attitudes through the 1900s. To discover why they clung to those values, I believe they thought that embracing them was for the common good, helping to build our nation. I
I appreciate your thoughts here, and it appears that we largely agree on the kind of change that has occurred and even some of variables that shaped that cha be. But shifts in attitudes, or even significant remaking of structural conditions and distribution of power and influence don’t just happen. And it’s the minutiae of those processes that I attempt to at least partially describe.
Why? Because it is in those details, within the play of the many structural and cultural variables, individual & collective responses by people who are neither helpless fools nor completely free agents (most of us are somewhere in the middle) and who are motivated by a variety of interests, that we find the patterns of behavior and outcomes that can be identified, measured and analyzed. Understanding these social patterns means understanding how change has or is occurring, which can also tell us something about how we can shape current or future changes.
In short, we are not helpless victims of unpredictable tides of social forces that push us this and that; we have agency, & the ability to consciously direct that agency towards specific goals. The more we understand the minutia of social change, and the roles, groups and institutions involved that change, the more power* we the people claim for ourselves and utilize in controlling our destiny. Ignoring this kind of knowledge & understanding, and by extension, the parts We, The People, play in making and remaking our society, we give up our power (what John Adams called the power of knowledge) & our collective responsibility for the world we live in.
* power exists in many forms, and money & status aren’t the only types of power people have available. There is the power of numbers, of the masses; the power of Knowledge, which as John Adams explains, allows us to see our oppression, and escape it (1765); the power associated with owning/controlling media, natural resources and the means of production. The American colonist found within themselves, via the collective knowledge and that of their convictions - all of which contributed to their success in fighting for Independence, and then less than ten years after the Revolutionary War, save their new country from the intensifying conflicts between the individual states that nearly destroyed everything they were trying to build.
TRump and his psychos are finding out what it means to "meet" one of THEM.
People are going to both-sides this tragedy like there are some magic statistics or alternate history involved. Violent political language came to prominence with the shock jocks on right-wing radio and FOX TV.
Trump, and his Department of War just murdered 11 people on a boat and bragged about it. They eliminated USAID. Dead people in Africa, dead people in Gaza, dead kids in American schools. And the guns and shooters just keep coming at ALL of us.
Who knows who the perpetrator will turn out to be, IF they ever catch the actual guilty person(s). They have fired some really good FBI people. Will we ever get the truth from this Administration?
Wishing the Kirk family love and healing.
See you in the streets, because we're working for an end to violence in all forms.
Alis,this is a great post.The quote by Kirk@ the beginning of Thom's commentary is reflective of what he and his " Neo Nazi" party think about guns. I've just reading about Kirk on Wikipedia and it reveals the type of person he was. He is not anyone on this substack would agree with,nor want to have coffee with. So far to the right ,he opposed abortion,the Civil rights act of 1964,false claims of electoral fraud in 2020 ,covid 19 misinformation,promoted Christain Nationism, and opposed gun control. This is just a partial list of what he advocated for and against. If you read the entire Wikipedia description of his past activities,I don't think we will have much sympathy for his assassination.
Let us not forget the " Neo Nazis" did not mourn for Melissa Hortman,did not mourn for MLK,for John and Robert Kennedy.
There were two petitions signed by 7000 to keep this event and a future one off campus. Guess when it's time for your WIKI page to end, it's just time.
Pages get updated for things. New children, accomplishments, connections. Once they find and convict a killer(s), that will likely be the last update. It's sad, he was young and might have changed.
Yeah but all those murdered people weren’t MAGAs and that’s the important thing to krasnov. We now have to worship St. Kirk as penance and violence will explode tenfold. I just saw a stat today that 15% of Americans have witnessed a mass murder firsthand. Unbelievable if true.
Weird thing about this shooting. They sure didn't want to hurt anyone else, Chris. There was a guy standing by Charlie. He was holding his phone to record, then reached up and touched the brim of his hat. Sure looked like a signal. You can see it on Keith Edwards' YouTube podcast.
That stat is mind-blowing, it would be 1 of every 1500. All I know, is EVERY damn one us have seen one on TV, they just cut it short before the blood.
We lost 58,220 in the Vietnam War through 1975. Since 1970, when I was Honorably Discharged, 1,030,000 homicides have been executed in America by Americans.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." To quote Walt Kelly's comic strip character, Pogo the Possum.
What might be as revealing Sir Okie Doke, is that, for the last several decades the U.S. has had about 50% more suicide [self-murders], than murders of others.
The Right has been promoting death over dialogue for decades now, but even as their own people have become victimized by the blowback from their abhorrent rhetoric, they don't miss a step as they quickly blame the Left for what has happened to them.
It is not my intention to start or feed into any wild conspiracy "theories" or delusions. But it has to be said that people whose orientation is left-leaning or even strongly leftist in the US, and certainly that liberal/progressive democrats habitually eschew any talk of violence or winning by resorting to extremist tactics. We are not likely to ever know who pulled that trigger yesterday, and it is almost certainly not someone who was trying to make a political statement against what Charlie Kirk espoused and believed, but I am sure that it was political. My first thought was that Kirk had pushed to have the Epstein files released until Trump applied pressure in mid-July and he said he would not be commenting on that issue for the "time being". But he had shown by then that he was not 100% loyal to the Trump agenda and he left the door open to renewing his call to have the files released. Trump had not been exonerated in any way and with all the recent revelations, such as the "birthday book", it was a certainty that Kirk would start demanding that the files be released. He had too much influence to let that happen. This looks very much like a very professional hit. There was a decoy "person of interest" who was questioned and held out as a "suspect" who distracted everyone while the real shooter slipped away. Where were the drones, helicopters, or small planes overhead which one might expect to be there to spot someone on a roof during a high-profile event? Isn't it odd that Trump was ahead of all the news organizations in announcing that Kirk was dead? Isn't it convenient to have a martyr and a huge news event to draw attention away and to rile up the MAGA crowd and provoke them to retaliatory attacks, leading to a cry for intervention using the National Guard and military troops in more cities? These questions need to be asked. We know what this administration is capable of.
We agree Robert. From what I have read, Kirk was rethinking his stance on Epstein, turning back to Trump being a pedophile, maybe the birthday book had a lot to do with it. Whatever he was,he wasn't stupid, and not falling for that Mike Johnson bit about it being a hoax,, I don't think Kirk believed in Time travel. BTW Kirk is Gaelic for Church.
The shot killed two birds with one stone. First it was a professional hit, a rifle shot to the jugular from a long distance, ergo definitely professional.
It gives Trump a Horst Wessel martyr, silences an ally turned critic, enables him to write his own narrative and a Reichstag moment.
For the record, there was an "expert" (I'm not saying he wasn't, just that he was presented as such), who said that the shot was not that difficult for someone with average ability. So, if he was correct, there is no reason to assume a professional shooter. I was surprised, it looked difficult to me, but I'm no gun expert.
Tony, I am watching the Stephanie Miller show at the moment, she had on ex FBI agent Tony Fugliosi (sp), who said much the same as you said, but having been a military trained Expert, I can emphatically state,. that a shot at 150-200 yards.for a target as precise as the jugular is beyond the capability of all but well trained sniper, even considering that he was aiming for the head, and there was a gravity drop in the round, it is still too much.
Also they claim that casings were found with trans and antifa writings on them.
Incredible, do you have any idea what it takes to write on a shell casing,, how convenient isn't it.
First the immigrants, then the trans and the leftists., truly a Reichstag moment.
I'm prepared to leave that to the experts, as I avoid guns as far as possible! My immediate thought was that firing only one shot looked like professional with great confidence in his skills. So we'll see, maybe.
About writing on shell casings, I had that thought also. It would have to be engraved, wouldn't it? Or use some ink that sticks to metal.
And yes, it certainly is convenient as a distraction from Epstein and also creating a martyr, deliberate or not.
The latest news is that it was engraved. consider the size of a shell casing, and what it would take to engrave a message on it, we are talking of micro engraving.
I had a Ronson cigarette lighter engraved in Vietnam, they use a special device, that traces large print to small print, and to engrave something onthe casing of a 30 caliber bullet, now that is something, you ould need a magnifying lense just to read the message.
It was a set up. There are now pictures being circulated of a person of interest, looks like a young male, but has a narrow waist and large hips
Anyway makes me wonder how they can get pictures of the "suspect", but not have stopped him.
This whole think stinks, it is just too convenient and at a time in which the biggest right wing influencer was turning on Trump.
Too convenient s right. And the whole "trans ideology messages engraved on the casings" is over the top -- just too perfect, you know? I can imagine a team of suits sitting in a room somewhere brainstorming ways to set up the murder of just the right person at just the right moment using just the right buzzwords to rile up the maga base. And detaining a guy who clearly had nothing to do with it would give the real shooter just enough time to escape. I normally don't buy into conspiracy theories, but it reeks of staging -- even more so than the "miracle ear" incident during the campaign. I can't help thinking it was meant as a Reichstag Fire moment, with Kirk in the role of Horst Wessel. It wouldn't be the first thing they stole verbatim from Hitler's playbook.
Mr. Farrar. Maybe you should explain the meaning of your historical reference to "a Reichstag" moment. Perhaps not everyone is informed on this important historical event.
As for me; I am quite in agreement with you and Robert. It looks fishy.
I kind of assumed that this crowd was astute, well educated and informed, but here goes. Less than a month after Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, a fire broke out in the Reichstag, Germany's Parliament or our Capitol bldg.
The accused was a mentally defective Dutch man, the Hitler press made it out to be a Communist plot, this gave Hitler an opportunity toinduce President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties and pursue a "ruthless confrontation" with the Communists. This made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.
No Ms. Sharron. I am not referring to that well known quote [often misquoted] by Martin Niemoller. The Reichstag fire was something else. Mr. Farrrar explains it well.
Please see my response to Alis on that point. There are other reasons for believing this was a pro or a trained assassin or someone with a lot of help.
Disagree on one thing, the difficulty. I'd ask people if they have seen the kind of weapons and sights that are available these days? Bright sunny day, up on a roof alone, you just have to know your weapon, stop your breath and squeeze.
Keith Edwards showed footage on his YouTube program of a guy next to Charlie that weirdly touched the rim of his hat just before the shot. A signal? They sure didn't want to hurt anyone else.
You make a god point. I have been happy not to know too much about guns and scopes, but I know they are state of the art. I actually won a sharpshooter award in 1960 in basic training! There are several reasons for thinking this was a pro and a trained sniper. He was on site less than 20 minutes but found the right place to get the angle and other details right, managed to get out before the area was swarmed, and to disappear without a trace (that has been identified as far as I know). One analyst was sure he was disguised very well and there does not appear to be any kind of gun case, suitcase, or container left behind. He surely did not walk in that building carrying a rifle in plain sight. The hat signal is very intriguing. I doubt if we will ever hear about it again, however.
IMHO Farrar may be right. Kirk was pressured by Trump to oppose opening the Epstein files.
To be continued. BTW the senate refused to order DOJ to produce the files. 51-49. Hawley and Paul voted with the Dems. Murkowski and Collins could have made the difference. IMHO they're scared shitless.
Schumer brought an amendment directing Bondi to release all Epstein-related files, but Republicans voted to table it.
"A cache of more than 16,000 emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s private Yahoo account paints a complex, and in many instances chilling portrait of a man whose enigmatic nature has only deepened since his death. The emails reveal Epstein’s unfiltered worries, odd sense of humor, and callousness toward the coterie of young women, many of them teenagers, who entered his world. The emails do the impossible: They bring Epstein back to life. Bloomberg's Ava Benny Morrison reports.
Names mentioned in Bloomberg's reporting
Ghislaine Maxwell: Epstein's accomplice and a frequent contact in the emails.
Donald Trump: The emails contain references to Trump. In one email from 2006, Epstein instructed Maxwell to "remove trump" from a list she sent him.
Bill Clinton: Email exchanges indicate Maxwell met with "Clinton" multiple times between 2006 and 2008. Maxwell also used the Clinton Global Initiative to promote her ocean conservation nonprofit.
Peter Mandelson: The former British ambassador to the U.S. corresponded with Epstein in 2005 about arranging travel to his private island. Following the release of the emails, Mandelson was fired.
Jes Staley: Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley is mentioned in relation to a 2015 email exchange where Epstein attempted to use his connection with Staley for a potential business deal. Staley previously denied having a personal relationship with Epstein.
Jimmy Cayne: Former CEO of Bear Stearns, mentioned on a list alongside Trump and Staley in a 2006 email.
Ariane de Rothschild: CEO of Edmond de Rothschild Holding SA, was in contact with Epstein. An email from Epstein suggested a possible business arrangement involving Staley.
Doug Band: A former aide to Bill Clinton. He received gifts from Epstein, including a $35,000 watch.
Sergey Brin: The tech billionaire is mentioned in the emails.
Context for other names associated with Epstein
While the following names were not revealed in the recent Bloomberg email cache, they have been mentioned in other court documents and legal proceedings related to Epstein.
Prince Andrew: Associated with Epstein through Ghislaine Maxwell.
Alan Dershowitz: The Harvard law professor was named in lawsuits against Epstein.
Leslie Wexner: The billionaire founder of L Brands was a close associate of Epstein.
Glenn Dubin: A billionaire hedge fund manager whose wife, Eva Andersson-Dubin, was a witness in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial.
Jean-Luc Brunel: The former model scout was associated with Epstein.
Amazing how many wealthy men were willing to demean their reputation for sex. Boggles the mind to think they thought they eventually wouldn't be found out.
Don't know whether the House Dems have done their homework. Acosta testifies on the 17th. Turns out there are two unfiled prosecution complaints -- 2006 and 2019 - that DOJ have not produced. Should lay out more co-conspirators.
Nobody is in favor of assassinations but to expect liberals to shed tears for those that commit to views of violence in living by the sword is unnatural. You are living by the sword when you shed no tears for the dead school victims because you would rather uphold 2nd amendment views than deal with the gun safety issues as all other countries do. Live by the sword die by the sword. It is a natural result of violence and why liberals follow Dr Martin Luther King successful non violent protesting. Nobody knows who this person is and what their motivation is but the right wing nuts are projecting their hate on everybody but themselves for the cause. Always blaming everybody but themselves for the violence they advocate for. As I understand it the last two assassination attempts of the President where not liberals. Almost all such actions are done by right wingers.
Kirk said numerous times that “empathy’ was “New Age”…what does that even mean? There will be no empathy coming from me for him. I am a tad sad for his family, but he was not educated in civics although a good debater. His venom will follow him to his grave.
Americans have been brainwashed for years with the 2nd amendment. It was never meant to be for all ordinary citizens but for militia's. the world was a very different place. How often does mainstream media report that between 50 to 60 thousand Americans die by the gun every year?? It is insane to think that this is freedom. How many times do people kill in self defense??? very rarely. The nonsense that it is mentally ill people and guns have nothing to do with it is idiotic Other countries have mentally ill people but without all the killings.
Republicans don't want gun control and keep supporting the NRA, all they do after mass shooting is "thoughts and prayers" they only care if it is one of their own.
Someone suggested that the killing Kirk was done by a professional killer (who are very expensive) because of the accuracy of the shot from such a distance.
This may be farfetched but may be Trump is pulling a Putin in order to create revengeance killings so he can declare martial law.
Veteran here. This wasn't necessarily a pro, Marjo. To qualify in basics, you are expected to hit targets at 300 meters with crappy training rifles at a noisy range. It's just a matter of sighting properly, controlling your breath, and squeezing. Rifles and sights now are remarkable.
Someone standing close to Charlie reached up and touched the rim of his hat just before the shot. It was a strange gesture. A signal maybe? Saw it on Keith Edwards' YouTube channel.
Kirk's shooting won't change anything in the Right's love of guns, I suspect it will simply enhance their argument that everybody needs to be armed. (Conversely if there were no shootings they would say that was because everybody was so well armed. Heads I win, tails you lose.) Certainly the thinking is irrational here; I was online with a neighbor who refused to believe that gunshots were the leading cause of childhood deaths. When I sent him articles from the CDC and The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, he said I wrote them! There is no arguing with that kind of thinking, such as it is.
Incidentally, as usual Hollywood gets it wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the "Wild West" wasn't a place of routine shootouts. It was actually a pretty boring place as people concentrated on survival in a harsh environment. Guns are heavy, prone to accidental discharges, and (especially in those days) not terribly accurate without a lot of practice. Plus people knew there was no need for them in towns, especially when drinking was widespread. Most cities had ordinances against carrying weapons, and in fact often the main job of Wyatt Earp and his deputies was collecting them when miners and cowboys came into Tombstone. Wikipedia lists 46 shootouts over 78 years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_West_gunfights By contrast Gun Violence Archive counts 586 mass shootings in American cities in 2024. Facts, but don't expect them to convince anybody.
Ancestors were a bunch of pikers compared to now! Read that a bunch of them accidentally shot themselves playing around. AND that was before they even hit The Oregon Trail. Some things never change.
After the righties kill most of us, and then themselves, and there is no one else to do their work, maybe then they will admit that (other)Americans need to be disarmed.
Scalia ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.
Purpose of Self-Defense:
The primary lawful purpose of this individual right is self-defense within the home.
Limitations on the Right:
The right is not absolute and allows for various regulations, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons.
"Dangerous and Unusual" Weapons:
Scalia also noted that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons that are "dangerous and unusual".
Challenged Regulations:
The Heller ruling struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned operable handguns in the home, finding that it prohibited an entire class of "arms" commonly used for lawful self-defense.
Heller is the case when Scalia's hypocracy was fully exposed. Whereas he claimed he was a "texturalist" and an "origianalist," he subordinated the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
AI Cherry-picking history: Critics accuse Scalia of misreading, ignoring, or manipulating historical evidence that ran counter to his desired outcome. The dissenting justices, for instance, conducted their own historical analysis and concluded the amendment protected the right to bear arms only in connection with militia service. Some scholars argue that Scalia's portrayal of 18th-century America did not reflect the society and the purpose of the militia at the time.
Ignoring the historical context of "militia": Legal scholars contend that Scalia disregarded the fact that militias were official, government-run institutions under the authority of the states. He instead adopted a definition of "militia" that encompassed all able-bodied men, a move critics say whitewashed the historical exclusion of people of color from militias. This redefinition allowed him to separate the right to bear arms from official militia service.
Disregarding the right to resist tyranny: While Scalia’s opinion recognized a historical right to resist tyranny, it downplayed this aspect to focus heavily on the individual right of self-defense. Some critics, like law professor Patrick Charles, argue that Scalia introduced the idea of a right to resist to establish a link to the common-law right of self-defense, but then abandoned it to make the self-defense argument central to the ruling.
Contradicting his own originalist principles: For an avowed originalist, the Heller opinion was seen by some as an embarrassment. Conservative jurists Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson III criticized the opinion as ideological judicial activism rather than sound originalism. They contended that Scalia's method—an imbalanced review of historical sources—was a flawed application of the interpretive method he championed.
I came to this country 35 years ago from Britain, a country that has, relatively, been gun free pretty much forever. So, I think I can give an outside observer's view, which is that the USA will never solve its gun problem while attitudes remain as they are. School shootings come and school shootings go, and every time the result is the same. Outrage followed by little to no action.
Why do I think that? Because the solution is not gun control as usually advocated, but what Australia did. Make a serious attempt to ban gun ownership and to remove as many guns as possible from the population. Why don't we do it here? Australia is different. They don't have a second amendment, they don't have a gun culture, and the people are generally amenable to having their "freedoms" restricted for the public good.
I used to talk to ordinary people (not rabid gun supporters) when these shootings happened. Were they in favor of gun control? Generally, yes. Were they in favor of repealing the second amendment and dramatically restricting gun ownership? Absolutely not.
So now when a school shooting happens, I feel for those affected, but don't expect much to happen, sadly. I'm not saying give up, these controls have helped somewhat in the past, but the problem will persist while the attitude persists.
Tony, you have seriously hit the proverbial nail on the head. I must consider why no one you questioned is in favor of repealing the Second Amendment when citizens of other countries, such as England and Australia, do not have a law like the Second Amendment. In other words, what do they see as their way to protect themselves from the government?
I'm not totally sure what you are asking, but if you are supporting the 2nd Amendment as means of protecting us from the government, I'd say that people in these other countries don't see that need as people here seem to. In Britain, my country of birth, it never occurred to me that simply voting an unpopular government out of office would not be enough. Of course, here we are now seeing that principle under siege. Really though, do you see citizens with guns having any chance against the military?
Tony,excellent post.There will never be change in gun control laws in this country.Victim's get the same old " hearts and prayers" bullshit and life goes on. We are living with a " neo Nazi" in the white house and we should not expect anything good to happen white he is there. Maybe@ some point Americans will wake up . 75 Million people voted for Harris,in the past 8 months at all the rallies,demonstrations,a small fraction of those 75 million have shown up. Where are they,AWOL?
While I do not disagree with your post, your illustration at the top is bizarre, with a pistol discharging a cartridge through its muzzle. Talk about effing miracles! (Hint: only the bullet comes out.)
It’s ironic that he died by what he espoused to, and what he specifically defended, and I’m paraphrasing a comment of his—that “some gun deaths every single year” was worth it so that we can have the second Amendment to protect our right to carry fire arms—he considered this “prudent” and “rational”.
My first reaction, last night, to the news that this fellow Kirk was murdered was "What goes around, comes around."
I expected the "shocked, shocked that someone shot back." Cries of foul by the Trump machine.
Imagine that someone who may have suffered -- or grown angry witnessing others suffering -- brought about by these hate mongers and MAGA band leaders actually striking back.
Enough of the posturing by Democrats about how terrible political violence is. I do not want to even smell a hint of "both sides."
There is only one side causing this.
Tell it like it is... Since 2017 in Charlottesville we have seen a non stop run of right wing/fascist/racist violence against ordinary people.
Tell them to stop the B...s...t
Tell GOP lackies, SCOTUS stooges and the MAGA monsters that whatever violence ensues from now, the cause is entirely with them.
Suggest they start by eliminating hooded and masked storm troopers from picking up innocent people off the streets. That is a good first step to having people calm down.
Everything you say is correct. None of it will mean a damn. Expect more, not less, from this insane and destroyed country. I worry about Mamdani, AOC, Newsom, Walz, even the Obamas. And the MAGAts should worry about their rogues' gallery as well. If we cannot rely on ballots, which is their goal, they will leave only bullets, and we are seeing that. That statistics bear out the value of gun control laws means nothing in this country. Our twisted frontier macho individualism dooms it in any red area and that includes the current SCOTUS. Just pray you and yours are not caught in the crossfire which will continue to happen.
This sentence - "The vast majority of Americans want rational gun control laws instead of this Wild West insanity." - spawned two thoughts:
1. As long as money, handed out by the NRA on behalf of the gun industry & others, speaks louder than words; and as long as the courts are in the hands of Republicans, it matters not at all what the vast majority of Americans want.
2. Even the Wild West wasn't this wild. I've never read of a school being shot up in Dodge City or Tombstone....
Maybe a Native American school....
Good points. Now we need to take these “two thoughts” to the next level - a critical analysis of how these ideas and related conditions occur? We would do well not to take anything for granted, including current conditions or culture that appear to create or support the social problems we are concerned about. More to the point, the greater our understanding of the social processes that have brought us to this moment in our history, the greater our collective Power to solve these problems, and remake society to better fit our shared ideals.
To start with, why does money speak louder than words”? It’s a mistake to just assume this as a fact - money, and the people who have large amounts of it, have not always held such a positive status & meaning in American society as they seem to have to have today. . It wasn’t until the 1980s that pro-wealth and wealthy people messaging became more prominent and popular in the US. In what appears to have been a highly successful PR scheme, this messaging seems to be positively correlated with a significant change from the historical American middle class’s distrust, if not disgust, with the decadent rich. Remember the “Lifestyle’s of the Rich and Famous”?
As Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Economy took hold of American Corporations beginning in the 1980s, remaking the American economy from an institution that functions for Society and the People to a mechanism that would ultimately transfer tens of trillions of dollars from the workers whose labor earned that money to the wealthiest shareholders, the “anyone can be rich, even you, if you ‘work’ hard enough, (or at least play the market right)” propaganda grew. This messaging became increasingly common in our culture: from movies and music to “get rich for dummies” books & lectures. It didn’t take long before many middle class Americans were supporting policy that enriched the wealthy, thinking they too might become rich and would want the government to help them keep more of their money for themselves. The American People became so effectively persuaded of more positive attitudes towards wealth and he wealthy, they seemed to be blind to the causes of their own economic stressors.
It was all quite genius, and I’m sure, quite deliberate (whether it was planned ahead, or just timely opportunism). The call to “run everything like a business,” first amplified by the Reagan Campaign, and before long, accepted by people on both sides of aisle, has supported the selling off of government services to the highest bidder, a great trick that has only increased the costs of services for the taxpayers while transferring tax dollars into investor accounts.
“Run it like a business” sounded so sensible to the American People who were simultaneously being convinced that paying taxes was a form of economic oppression, that few seemed cognizant of the fact that by business, proponents of this approach really meant “run it” like a predatory, punitive & “profit before people” corporation. In fact, there seemed to be little public discussion of the differences between the kind of local and regional businesses that people in mid-twentieth century America were more likely to have interacted with, and the increasingly powerful, “to-big-to-fail” international corporate conglomerates whose prevailing practice of ”any means are justified by the objective of more profit” that came to define what “run it like a business” actually meant. As a result, there was likely a convenient (from the position of the Shareholder class) gap between the what The People thought they were supporting and what was actually happening as the corporatization and privatization of government & social institutions grew.
Pro-corporate, pro-wall-street and pro-wealth propaganda convinced many Americans to embrace the assumption that the corporatization of social services would to lower costs, lower tax bills and leave more money in their own pockets. Instead, Local, State and Federal governments were paying the same or more for lower quantity and quality of services that too often ended up costing the People more in the long run (tax bills & costs of the consequences of declining services), while making private contractors richer.
I don’t mean to suggest that before all this, money didn’t matter to people; rather, I’d argue that up until the 1970s and 80s, money was not seen as more important than other values like integrity, decency, and our Democratic Republic Constitutional government. And the wealthy were distrusted, their lifestyles judged as overly-indulgent, self-centered, superficial and immoral.
In sum, the successful propaganda of celebrating wealth and the ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous, helped smooth the way to the slow but progressive investor takeover of American Institutions that helped turn millionaires into billionaires while pushing more and more people in America into economic uncertainty/instability and weakening the bonds of communities and society. And these were the outcomes, the change in social conditions and attitudes, accompanied by the political invisibility of those people who were economically and socially left behind and their emerging disillusionment with the expansion of civil rights and growing anger over their own economic troubles, that laid the groundwork for the eventual rise of a divisive authoritarian, even fascist, politics.
Is it surprising that certain financial and political interests would also begin challenging the values of unity and collective American Interests, while pushing a more Hobbesian view of Freedom- every person for themselves? Sadly, the latter is, fundamentally, contrary to the Ideals upon which the vision (if not the reality) of the newly Liberated nation of America. But for those who are addicted to MORE - more money and more power - this type of anti-social self-interest became a very useful tool as they grew their power and wealth.
Enlightenment Philosophers like Locke and Spinoza argued that Hobbes view of natural freedom (a very basic, in the moment Freedom to act -even against all others- in one’s immediate self-interests) was incompatible with the stable society on which modern society, and certainly the Liberated and Free Society they, and later, the American Founders envisioned.
It’s impossible to create a unified and rational society that produces the modern human capable of thought and reason, if every individual is driven solely by ‘in the moment’ self-interest to act, without constraint nor concern for others, to satisfy their immediate wants. In fact, the human society, in which human survival has always depended on (as individuals, human beings were not, and still aren’t, constructed to survive very well in our own; our success in surviving and adapting over the 1-3 million years was due to our social nature).
As for the “Wild West” everyone man for himself image that some people, including, ironically, relatively pampered super-rich investors, use to justify their destructive self-interest, you make a good point - as a rule, people weren’t shooting up schools (although, in reality, there weren’t that many public schools in the west before the late 1800s). But it is also the case that the rate of survival for pioneers and settlers in the West was much higher for those people who lived near neighbors that would come together to help each other out (ie “raising” barns) and to survive dangerous threats than for those individualists who set out to do it all on their own.
Sure, there were gunfighters, bank robbers and all-around bad characters in the old West (just like we have today), who moved West for similar reasons as the others (ie escaping the rules, laws, and social norms that came with settled towns and cities) but with very different objectives. Which is why, eventually, the typical freedom seeking homesteaders, ranchers and pioneers who went West to escape the constraints of settled society, and take advantage of the “wide open spaces”( which they assumed was ready for the taking, never mind the indigenous people who had lived in those lands for thousands of years), would petition to be designated a US territory, and eventually state, so that they qualified for the protection of the Marshall Service and Army, and could find security under the resulting laws and regulations.
Whatever fantasies these folks had of being free and unencumbered by society, its rules and limitations, they soon learned that not everyone seeking this kind of environment was decent or respectful of other’s property or rights. It was hard enough for them to violently take and maintain control over their land in the face of Indigenous people’s resistance, but they also had to cope with robbers, roaming gangs of criminals and neighboring ranchers who believed that they had the right to claim and violently protect as much range land as they wanted when a bunch of “sod busters” (homesteaders) started putting up fences & using “their” water.
It didn’t take long for these freedom seeking farmers and ranchers to yearn for the law and order they left behind back east. The began by hiring sheriffs and (at least trying) to establish gun-free towns, then sought out the social order of being recognized by the American government as an official territory, then State. Aside from the few true individualists who preferred the isolation and independence of the wilderness, the West was “won” first by the murder/genocide against native Americans, and then, soon after, reproducing the social order pioneers and ranchers originally tried to escape.
(Continued)
In short (well, kind of, I do have a tendency to get carried away once I start writing), fantasies of wealthy lifestyles awaiting us all, and the hyper-individualism of the so-called “self-made,” self-interested rich man were evocative components of the “shareholder economy” propaganda. Knowing where these ideas come from, and how they have been used to ease the way of wealthy investors as they enriched themselves via the labor and tax-dollars of The People in America provides us with important clues as to how best to counter both the propaganda & the corporatization of our country, and even how to create a counter-narrative to break through the propagandized mindset of The American People (largely by focusing on the most persuasive & evil stove facts relating to The Peoples shared interests & the actual costs & consequences of our corporatized society).
That which society constructs, even within an increasing unequal balance of power, can likewise be deconstructed and remade. As Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other’s we refer to as America’s Founders believed, knowledge (based on Free Inquiry/scientific methods, reason, & verifiable evidence) is power, not indoctrination. Where Knowledge is obstructed or controlled by the ruling classes, propaganda & indoctrination thrive, and the full potential of The Power of the People in pursuit of social and personal Liberty and Freedom are stifled.
The reason money became a mantra in the US is people with money usually beat the system and that appealed to those without power and also those who wanted the luxury rich people enjoyed.
The minutiae in which you devolve in your essay is repetitive of the premise that people dealt with the power of money- whatever their cause; therefore without making a concise conclusion summing up your lengthy diatribe, does not constitute a finished idea.
Hey, just sharing my thoughts, my response to the previous comment.
As for your conclusion, I find it rather ahistorical and vague. Again, longitudinal research that has followed American’s values, mores and attitudes at least through the 1900s (with some richer studies of the middle class and how they see and live in the world), noting a very significant shift in the MC’s views of wealth and the wealthy post mid-century - from a highly critical view to one in which wealth and the wealthy are seen more positive light. Since the stinking rich have been getting their own way throughout human history, your view does not explain why the shift in American attitudes about wealth and the wealthy occurred (I’m not saying that middle class didn’t have any interest in prosperity; they just had any number of equally, or more, valued qualities and outcomes).
I believe the ‘shift in attitude’ towards money is rooted in the historical trajectory of neoliberalism, whether we like it or agree with it; here it is, and it has caught on with individuals who were of the ilk you keenly note with specific American values, mores, and attitudes through the 1900s. To discover why they clung to those values, I believe they thought that embracing them was for the common good, helping to build our nation. I
I appreciate your thoughts here, and it appears that we largely agree on the kind of change that has occurred and even some of variables that shaped that cha be. But shifts in attitudes, or even significant remaking of structural conditions and distribution of power and influence don’t just happen. And it’s the minutiae of those processes that I attempt to at least partially describe.
Why? Because it is in those details, within the play of the many structural and cultural variables, individual & collective responses by people who are neither helpless fools nor completely free agents (most of us are somewhere in the middle) and who are motivated by a variety of interests, that we find the patterns of behavior and outcomes that can be identified, measured and analyzed. Understanding these social patterns means understanding how change has or is occurring, which can also tell us something about how we can shape current or future changes.
In short, we are not helpless victims of unpredictable tides of social forces that push us this and that; we have agency, & the ability to consciously direct that agency towards specific goals. The more we understand the minutia of social change, and the roles, groups and institutions involved that change, the more power* we the people claim for ourselves and utilize in controlling our destiny. Ignoring this kind of knowledge & understanding, and by extension, the parts We, The People, play in making and remaking our society, we give up our power (what John Adams called the power of knowledge) & our collective responsibility for the world we live in.
* power exists in many forms, and money & status aren’t the only types of power people have available. There is the power of numbers, of the masses; the power of Knowledge, which as John Adams explains, allows us to see our oppression, and escape it (1765); the power associated with owning/controlling media, natural resources and the means of production. The American colonist found within themselves, via the collective knowledge and that of their convictions - all of which contributed to their success in fighting for Independence, and then less than ten years after the Revolutionary War, save their new country from the intensifying conflicts between the individual states that nearly destroyed everything they were trying to build.
Excellent points Mr. Politt. you ar right on target.
TRump and his psychos are finding out what it means to "meet" one of THEM.
People are going to both-sides this tragedy like there are some magic statistics or alternate history involved. Violent political language came to prominence with the shock jocks on right-wing radio and FOX TV.
Trump, and his Department of War just murdered 11 people on a boat and bragged about it. They eliminated USAID. Dead people in Africa, dead people in Gaza, dead kids in American schools. And the guns and shooters just keep coming at ALL of us.
Who knows who the perpetrator will turn out to be, IF they ever catch the actual guilty person(s). They have fired some really good FBI people. Will we ever get the truth from this Administration?
Wishing the Kirk family love and healing.
See you in the streets, because we're working for an end to violence in all forms.
Alis,this is a great post.The quote by Kirk@ the beginning of Thom's commentary is reflective of what he and his " Neo Nazi" party think about guns. I've just reading about Kirk on Wikipedia and it reveals the type of person he was. He is not anyone on this substack would agree with,nor want to have coffee with. So far to the right ,he opposed abortion,the Civil rights act of 1964,false claims of electoral fraud in 2020 ,covid 19 misinformation,promoted Christain Nationism, and opposed gun control. This is just a partial list of what he advocated for and against. If you read the entire Wikipedia description of his past activities,I don't think we will have much sympathy for his assassination.
Let us not forget the " Neo Nazis" did not mourn for Melissa Hortman,did not mourn for MLK,for John and Robert Kennedy.
Thanks David.
There were two petitions signed by 7000 to keep this event and a future one off campus. Guess when it's time for your WIKI page to end, it's just time.
Guess when it's time for your WIKI page to end,it's just time????
Pages get updated for things. New children, accomplishments, connections. Once they find and convict a killer(s), that will likely be the last update. It's sad, he was young and might have changed.
Yeah but all those murdered people weren’t MAGAs and that’s the important thing to krasnov. We now have to worship St. Kirk as penance and violence will explode tenfold. I just saw a stat today that 15% of Americans have witnessed a mass murder firsthand. Unbelievable if true.
Be safe.
Weird thing about this shooting. They sure didn't want to hurt anyone else, Chris. There was a guy standing by Charlie. He was holding his phone to record, then reached up and touched the brim of his hat. Sure looked like a signal. You can see it on Keith Edwards' YouTube podcast.
That stat is mind-blowing, it would be 1 of every 1500. All I know, is EVERY damn one us have seen one on TV, they just cut it short before the blood.
Take care too.
We lost 58,220 in the Vietnam War through 1975. Since 1970, when I was Honorably Discharged, 1,030,000 homicides have been executed in America by Americans.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." To quote Walt Kelly's comic strip character, Pogo the Possum.
What might be as revealing Sir Okie Doke, is that, for the last several decades the U.S. has had about 50% more suicide [self-murders], than murders of others.
What does that say about us?
The Right has been promoting death over dialogue for decades now, but even as their own people have become victimized by the blowback from their abhorrent rhetoric, they don't miss a step as they quickly blame the Left for what has happened to them.
Well said, Jeffrey. Also, they tank the economy---we're supposed to fix it. They enable psychos with guns---we're supposed to not mention it.
It is not my intention to start or feed into any wild conspiracy "theories" or delusions. But it has to be said that people whose orientation is left-leaning or even strongly leftist in the US, and certainly that liberal/progressive democrats habitually eschew any talk of violence or winning by resorting to extremist tactics. We are not likely to ever know who pulled that trigger yesterday, and it is almost certainly not someone who was trying to make a political statement against what Charlie Kirk espoused and believed, but I am sure that it was political. My first thought was that Kirk had pushed to have the Epstein files released until Trump applied pressure in mid-July and he said he would not be commenting on that issue for the "time being". But he had shown by then that he was not 100% loyal to the Trump agenda and he left the door open to renewing his call to have the files released. Trump had not been exonerated in any way and with all the recent revelations, such as the "birthday book", it was a certainty that Kirk would start demanding that the files be released. He had too much influence to let that happen. This looks very much like a very professional hit. There was a decoy "person of interest" who was questioned and held out as a "suspect" who distracted everyone while the real shooter slipped away. Where were the drones, helicopters, or small planes overhead which one might expect to be there to spot someone on a roof during a high-profile event? Isn't it odd that Trump was ahead of all the news organizations in announcing that Kirk was dead? Isn't it convenient to have a martyr and a huge news event to draw attention away and to rile up the MAGA crowd and provoke them to retaliatory attacks, leading to a cry for intervention using the National Guard and military troops in more cities? These questions need to be asked. We know what this administration is capable of.
We agree Robert. From what I have read, Kirk was rethinking his stance on Epstein, turning back to Trump being a pedophile, maybe the birthday book had a lot to do with it. Whatever he was,he wasn't stupid, and not falling for that Mike Johnson bit about it being a hoax,, I don't think Kirk believed in Time travel. BTW Kirk is Gaelic for Church.
The shot killed two birds with one stone. First it was a professional hit, a rifle shot to the jugular from a long distance, ergo definitely professional.
It gives Trump a Horst Wessel martyr, silences an ally turned critic, enables him to write his own narrative and a Reichstag moment.
For the record, there was an "expert" (I'm not saying he wasn't, just that he was presented as such), who said that the shot was not that difficult for someone with average ability. So, if he was correct, there is no reason to assume a professional shooter. I was surprised, it looked difficult to me, but I'm no gun expert.
Tony, I am watching the Stephanie Miller show at the moment, she had on ex FBI agent Tony Fugliosi (sp), who said much the same as you said, but having been a military trained Expert, I can emphatically state,. that a shot at 150-200 yards.for a target as precise as the jugular is beyond the capability of all but well trained sniper, even considering that he was aiming for the head, and there was a gravity drop in the round, it is still too much.
Also they claim that casings were found with trans and antifa writings on them.
Incredible, do you have any idea what it takes to write on a shell casing,, how convenient isn't it.
First the immigrants, then the trans and the leftists., truly a Reichstag moment.
I'm prepared to leave that to the experts, as I avoid guns as far as possible! My immediate thought was that firing only one shot looked like professional with great confidence in his skills. So we'll see, maybe.
About writing on shell casings, I had that thought also. It would have to be engraved, wouldn't it? Or use some ink that sticks to metal.
And yes, it certainly is convenient as a distraction from Epstein and also creating a martyr, deliberate or not.
The latest news is that it was engraved. consider the size of a shell casing, and what it would take to engrave a message on it, we are talking of micro engraving.
I had a Ronson cigarette lighter engraved in Vietnam, they use a special device, that traces large print to small print, and to engrave something onthe casing of a 30 caliber bullet, now that is something, you ould need a magnifying lense just to read the message.
It was a set up. There are now pictures being circulated of a person of interest, looks like a young male, but has a narrow waist and large hips
Anyway makes me wonder how they can get pictures of the "suspect", but not have stopped him.
This whole think stinks, it is just too convenient and at a time in which the biggest right wing influencer was turning on Trump.
Too convenient s right. And the whole "trans ideology messages engraved on the casings" is over the top -- just too perfect, you know? I can imagine a team of suits sitting in a room somewhere brainstorming ways to set up the murder of just the right person at just the right moment using just the right buzzwords to rile up the maga base. And detaining a guy who clearly had nothing to do with it would give the real shooter just enough time to escape. I normally don't buy into conspiracy theories, but it reeks of staging -- even more so than the "miracle ear" incident during the campaign. I can't help thinking it was meant as a Reichstag Fire moment, with Kirk in the role of Horst Wessel. It wouldn't be the first thing they stole verbatim from Hitler's playbook.
Mr. Farrar. Maybe you should explain the meaning of your historical reference to "a Reichstag" moment. Perhaps not everyone is informed on this important historical event.
As for me; I am quite in agreement with you and Robert. It looks fishy.
I kind of assumed that this crowd was astute, well educated and informed, but here goes. Less than a month after Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, a fire broke out in the Reichstag, Germany's Parliament or our Capitol bldg.
The accused was a mentally defective Dutch man, the Hitler press made it out to be a Communist plot, this gave Hitler an opportunity toinduce President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties and pursue a "ruthless confrontation" with the Communists. This made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.
Gerald, Are yoou referring to this quote?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
No Ms. Sharron. I am not referring to that well known quote [often misquoted] by Martin Niemoller. The Reichstag fire was something else. Mr. Farrrar explains it well.
Please see my response to Alis on that point. There are other reasons for believing this was a pro or a trained assassin or someone with a lot of help.
Robert,excellent,will this take attention away from the Epstein files.?Did not realize Trump announced Kirk's death before the news organs?
Disagree on one thing, the difficulty. I'd ask people if they have seen the kind of weapons and sights that are available these days? Bright sunny day, up on a roof alone, you just have to know your weapon, stop your breath and squeeze.
Keith Edwards showed footage on his YouTube program of a guy next to Charlie that weirdly touched the rim of his hat just before the shot. A signal? They sure didn't want to hurt anyone else.
You make a god point. I have been happy not to know too much about guns and scopes, but I know they are state of the art. I actually won a sharpshooter award in 1960 in basic training! There are several reasons for thinking this was a pro and a trained sniper. He was on site less than 20 minutes but found the right place to get the angle and other details right, managed to get out before the area was swarmed, and to disappear without a trace (that has been identified as far as I know). One analyst was sure he was disguised very well and there does not appear to be any kind of gun case, suitcase, or container left behind. He surely did not walk in that building carrying a rifle in plain sight. The hat signal is very intriguing. I doubt if we will ever hear about it again, however.
Robert, WOW! Your analysis took me by surprise. Never occurred to me.
IMHO Farrar may be right. Kirk was pressured by Trump to oppose opening the Epstein files.
To be continued. BTW the senate refused to order DOJ to produce the files. 51-49. Hawley and Paul voted with the Dems. Murkowski and Collins could have made the difference. IMHO they're scared shitless.
Schumer brought an amendment directing Bondi to release all Epstein-related files, but Republicans voted to table it.
Later, however, emails were released. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbVWGXyhk6M.
"A cache of more than 16,000 emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s private Yahoo account paints a complex, and in many instances chilling portrait of a man whose enigmatic nature has only deepened since his death. The emails reveal Epstein’s unfiltered worries, odd sense of humor, and callousness toward the coterie of young women, many of them teenagers, who entered his world. The emails do the impossible: They bring Epstein back to life. Bloomberg's Ava Benny Morrison reports.
Names mentioned in Bloomberg's reporting
Ghislaine Maxwell: Epstein's accomplice and a frequent contact in the emails.
Donald Trump: The emails contain references to Trump. In one email from 2006, Epstein instructed Maxwell to "remove trump" from a list she sent him.
Bill Clinton: Email exchanges indicate Maxwell met with "Clinton" multiple times between 2006 and 2008. Maxwell also used the Clinton Global Initiative to promote her ocean conservation nonprofit.
Peter Mandelson: The former British ambassador to the U.S. corresponded with Epstein in 2005 about arranging travel to his private island. Following the release of the emails, Mandelson was fired.
Jes Staley: Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley is mentioned in relation to a 2015 email exchange where Epstein attempted to use his connection with Staley for a potential business deal. Staley previously denied having a personal relationship with Epstein.
Jimmy Cayne: Former CEO of Bear Stearns, mentioned on a list alongside Trump and Staley in a 2006 email.
Ariane de Rothschild: CEO of Edmond de Rothschild Holding SA, was in contact with Epstein. An email from Epstein suggested a possible business arrangement involving Staley.
Doug Band: A former aide to Bill Clinton. He received gifts from Epstein, including a $35,000 watch.
Sergey Brin: The tech billionaire is mentioned in the emails.
Context for other names associated with Epstein
While the following names were not revealed in the recent Bloomberg email cache, they have been mentioned in other court documents and legal proceedings related to Epstein.
Prince Andrew: Associated with Epstein through Ghislaine Maxwell.
Alan Dershowitz: The Harvard law professor was named in lawsuits against Epstein.
Leslie Wexner: The billionaire founder of L Brands was a close associate of Epstein.
Glenn Dubin: A billionaire hedge fund manager whose wife, Eva Andersson-Dubin, was a witness in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial.
Jean-Luc Brunel: The former model scout was associated with Epstein.
Amazing how many wealthy men were willing to demean their reputation for sex. Boggles the mind to think they thought they eventually wouldn't be found out.
IMHO there are layers and levels of coverup.
Don't know whether the House Dems have done their homework. Acosta testifies on the 17th. Turns out there are two unfiled prosecution complaints -- 2006 and 2019 - that DOJ have not produced. Should lay out more co-conspirators.
Nobody is in favor of assassinations but to expect liberals to shed tears for those that commit to views of violence in living by the sword is unnatural. You are living by the sword when you shed no tears for the dead school victims because you would rather uphold 2nd amendment views than deal with the gun safety issues as all other countries do. Live by the sword die by the sword. It is a natural result of violence and why liberals follow Dr Martin Luther King successful non violent protesting. Nobody knows who this person is and what their motivation is but the right wing nuts are projecting their hate on everybody but themselves for the cause. Always blaming everybody but themselves for the violence they advocate for. As I understand it the last two assassination attempts of the President where not liberals. Almost all such actions are done by right wingers.
Kirk said numerous times that “empathy’ was “New Age”…what does that even mean? There will be no empathy coming from me for him. I am a tad sad for his family, but he was not educated in civics although a good debater. His venom will follow him to his grave.
Americans have been brainwashed for years with the 2nd amendment. It was never meant to be for all ordinary citizens but for militia's. the world was a very different place. How often does mainstream media report that between 50 to 60 thousand Americans die by the gun every year?? It is insane to think that this is freedom. How many times do people kill in self defense??? very rarely. The nonsense that it is mentally ill people and guns have nothing to do with it is idiotic Other countries have mentally ill people but without all the killings.
Republicans don't want gun control and keep supporting the NRA, all they do after mass shooting is "thoughts and prayers" they only care if it is one of their own.
Someone suggested that the killing Kirk was done by a professional killer (who are very expensive) because of the accuracy of the shot from such a distance.
This may be farfetched but may be Trump is pulling a Putin in order to create revengeance killings so he can declare martial law.
Veteran here. This wasn't necessarily a pro, Marjo. To qualify in basics, you are expected to hit targets at 300 meters with crappy training rifles at a noisy range. It's just a matter of sighting properly, controlling your breath, and squeezing. Rifles and sights now are remarkable.
Someone standing close to Charlie reached up and touched the rim of his hat just before the shot. It was a strange gesture. A signal maybe? Saw it on Keith Edwards' YouTube channel.
Kirk's shooting won't change anything in the Right's love of guns, I suspect it will simply enhance their argument that everybody needs to be armed. (Conversely if there were no shootings they would say that was because everybody was so well armed. Heads I win, tails you lose.) Certainly the thinking is irrational here; I was online with a neighbor who refused to believe that gunshots were the leading cause of childhood deaths. When I sent him articles from the CDC and The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, he said I wrote them! There is no arguing with that kind of thinking, such as it is.
Incidentally, as usual Hollywood gets it wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the "Wild West" wasn't a place of routine shootouts. It was actually a pretty boring place as people concentrated on survival in a harsh environment. Guns are heavy, prone to accidental discharges, and (especially in those days) not terribly accurate without a lot of practice. Plus people knew there was no need for them in towns, especially when drinking was widespread. Most cities had ordinances against carrying weapons, and in fact often the main job of Wyatt Earp and his deputies was collecting them when miners and cowboys came into Tombstone. Wikipedia lists 46 shootouts over 78 years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_West_gunfights By contrast Gun Violence Archive counts 586 mass shootings in American cities in 2024. Facts, but don't expect them to convince anybody.
Ancestors were a bunch of pikers compared to now! Read that a bunch of them accidentally shot themselves playing around. AND that was before they even hit The Oregon Trail. Some things never change.
Thanks doc, I'm listening to you.
First day of deer season every year, lots of accidental shootngs.
A friend was mistaken for a bear, killed by a 12 year old hunter.
So hard for the family, friends and especially that kid.
How about my friend's wife and kids?
That's the family part I mentioned. Had to be horrible.
That is very sad to hear. I suppose there is no way to prevent an accident like this even if adhering to the rules.
At least when we went quail hunting it was pretty much out in the open.
After the righties kill most of us, and then themselves, and there is no one else to do their work, maybe then they will admit that (other)Americans need to be disarmed.
Mr. Weil, "He said I wrote them." My god, how does one deal with such a response?
The only way one can, with silence.
Individual Right:
Scalia ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.
Purpose of Self-Defense:
The primary lawful purpose of this individual right is self-defense within the home.
Limitations on the Right:
The right is not absolute and allows for various regulations, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons.
"Dangerous and Unusual" Weapons:
Scalia also noted that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons that are "dangerous and unusual".
Challenged Regulations:
The Heller ruling struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned operable handguns in the home, finding that it prohibited an entire class of "arms" commonly used for lawful self-defense.
Heller is the case when Scalia's hypocracy was fully exposed. Whereas he claimed he was a "texturalist" and an "origianalist," he subordinated the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
AI Cherry-picking history: Critics accuse Scalia of misreading, ignoring, or manipulating historical evidence that ran counter to his desired outcome. The dissenting justices, for instance, conducted their own historical analysis and concluded the amendment protected the right to bear arms only in connection with militia service. Some scholars argue that Scalia's portrayal of 18th-century America did not reflect the society and the purpose of the militia at the time.
Ignoring the historical context of "militia": Legal scholars contend that Scalia disregarded the fact that militias were official, government-run institutions under the authority of the states. He instead adopted a definition of "militia" that encompassed all able-bodied men, a move critics say whitewashed the historical exclusion of people of color from militias. This redefinition allowed him to separate the right to bear arms from official militia service.
Disregarding the right to resist tyranny: While Scalia’s opinion recognized a historical right to resist tyranny, it downplayed this aspect to focus heavily on the individual right of self-defense. Some critics, like law professor Patrick Charles, argue that Scalia introduced the idea of a right to resist to establish a link to the common-law right of self-defense, but then abandoned it to make the self-defense argument central to the ruling.
Contradicting his own originalist principles: For an avowed originalist, the Heller opinion was seen by some as an embarrassment. Conservative jurists Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson III criticized the opinion as ideological judicial activism rather than sound originalism. They contended that Scalia's method—an imbalanced review of historical sources—was a flawed application of the interpretive method he championed.
Oh for the days of embarrassment and people seeing the distortions.
I came to this country 35 years ago from Britain, a country that has, relatively, been gun free pretty much forever. So, I think I can give an outside observer's view, which is that the USA will never solve its gun problem while attitudes remain as they are. School shootings come and school shootings go, and every time the result is the same. Outrage followed by little to no action.
Why do I think that? Because the solution is not gun control as usually advocated, but what Australia did. Make a serious attempt to ban gun ownership and to remove as many guns as possible from the population. Why don't we do it here? Australia is different. They don't have a second amendment, they don't have a gun culture, and the people are generally amenable to having their "freedoms" restricted for the public good.
I used to talk to ordinary people (not rabid gun supporters) when these shootings happened. Were they in favor of gun control? Generally, yes. Were they in favor of repealing the second amendment and dramatically restricting gun ownership? Absolutely not.
So now when a school shooting happens, I feel for those affected, but don't expect much to happen, sadly. I'm not saying give up, these controls have helped somewhat in the past, but the problem will persist while the attitude persists.
Tony, you have seriously hit the proverbial nail on the head. I must consider why no one you questioned is in favor of repealing the Second Amendment when citizens of other countries, such as England and Australia, do not have a law like the Second Amendment. In other words, what do they see as their way to protect themselves from the government?
I'm not totally sure what you are asking, but if you are supporting the 2nd Amendment as means of protecting us from the government, I'd say that people in these other countries don't see that need as people here seem to. In Britain, my country of birth, it never occurred to me that simply voting an unpopular government out of office would not be enough. Of course, here we are now seeing that principle under siege. Really though, do you see citizens with guns having any chance against the military?
Tony,excellent post.There will never be change in gun control laws in this country.Victim's get the same old " hearts and prayers" bullshit and life goes on. We are living with a " neo Nazi" in the white house and we should not expect anything good to happen white he is there. Maybe@ some point Americans will wake up . 75 Million people voted for Harris,in the past 8 months at all the rallies,demonstrations,a small fraction of those 75 million have shown up. Where are they,AWOL?
There will be gun control, as in Russia. When the plan is fulfilled and the tech bros have their Technate America and Russia has its Eurasia.
The Carving up: The post WWII order is over.
https://www.mind-war.com/p/the-carving-up-the-post-wwii-world
While I do not disagree with your post, your illustration at the top is bizarre, with a pistol discharging a cartridge through its muzzle. Talk about effing miracles! (Hint: only the bullet comes out.)
It’s ironic that he died by what he espoused to, and what he specifically defended, and I’m paraphrasing a comment of his—that “some gun deaths every single year” was worth it so that we can have the second Amendment to protect our right to carry fire arms—he considered this “prudent” and “rational”.
My first reaction, last night, to the news that this fellow Kirk was murdered was "What goes around, comes around."
I expected the "shocked, shocked that someone shot back." Cries of foul by the Trump machine.
Imagine that someone who may have suffered -- or grown angry witnessing others suffering -- brought about by these hate mongers and MAGA band leaders actually striking back.
Enough of the posturing by Democrats about how terrible political violence is. I do not want to even smell a hint of "both sides."
There is only one side causing this.
Tell it like it is... Since 2017 in Charlottesville we have seen a non stop run of right wing/fascist/racist violence against ordinary people.
Tell them to stop the B...s...t
Tell GOP lackies, SCOTUS stooges and the MAGA monsters that whatever violence ensues from now, the cause is entirely with them.
Suggest they start by eliminating hooded and masked storm troopers from picking up innocent people off the streets. That is a good first step to having people calm down.
D.
Everything you say is correct. None of it will mean a damn. Expect more, not less, from this insane and destroyed country. I worry about Mamdani, AOC, Newsom, Walz, even the Obamas. And the MAGAts should worry about their rogues' gallery as well. If we cannot rely on ballots, which is their goal, they will leave only bullets, and we are seeing that. That statistics bear out the value of gun control laws means nothing in this country. Our twisted frontier macho individualism dooms it in any red area and that includes the current SCOTUS. Just pray you and yours are not caught in the crossfire which will continue to happen.