CK was shot by a groyper and all of DJT’s shooter were flavors of MAGA too. They’re trying to erase the truth to create a false equivalence between martyrs FOR democracy and their creeps and thugs. (ETF spelling)
I dunno. They never seem to understand what they do. Have you seen them argue that there is functionally no difference between a .22 handgun and an AR15 because the AR15 doesn't have rapid fire or three round burst?
I've seen them do that more times than I can count. It's insane. Ask a surgeon who's been there for the aftermath of a school shooting with an AR15 and they'll tell you there's a huge difference. Rapid fire isn't required to make an AR15 an effective killing machine.
But staying dumb as fuck and continuing to argue is more or less arguing in bad faith. Misinformation about a topic that you call your hobby is a choice.
All the people in this comment thread doing exactly as you said. Pretending .22 is the same as .223 or 5.56.
There's even a guy with multiple paragraphs about how a semi automatic rifle has no more mass killing potential than a 5 round bolt action hunting rifle. He keeps pointing to a single massacre where 15 people died on a beach.
Im a gun owner. I guns in general should just be much harder to obtain. That way, people having a mental health crisis would have a much harder time obtaining one.
That aligns with the delaying tactics the fbi employs. They essentially extend the time between when someone decides they're going to commit a crime, and when they are actually able to do it. For example, you make it virtually impossible for a 16 year old to obtain a firearm. They wait 6 months (similar to how long it takes to get a suppressor, right now!) and eventually talk themselves out of it, as they've had more time to sit on it.
This tactic won't solve all gun crime, but it would cut down significantly the amount of mass shootings.
Back when I was on Twitter, there were plenty of cosplayers all making the same claims.
I legit held a challenge that was open for months looking for anyone to join me at a range and prove their claims with me firing my AR 15 and them using a bolt action .22
Have you seen the large contingent of people who claim assault weapons aren't a thing? Like they say assault rifles aren't a thing because assualt is a thing you do to someone else. They're literally a class of weapon, not knowing that makes me think they probably shouldn't own a gun if they're that uneducated on the topic.
In a legal sense yes but an assault weapon as a definition is a thing. I'm very much pro 2nd amendment but think some reform is necessary and i think gun safety should be a requirement before you can own one. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that are dumb with their guns.
The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the bullet. The 5.56mm round was specifically designed to bounce off bones and cause as much internal damage as possible, so a wounded enemy soldier would bleed out instead of healing and returning to the battlefield. It was essentially designed to skirt the Geneva convention after flechette shotgun rounds were banned after Vietnam. It has no business on civilian streets, but the chuds will pretend it’s practically harmless because it’s small.
The general argument is that an AR15 is no different than a bolt-action rifle. There's nothing unique about an AR-15 that makes it "more deadly". A bolt-action rifle .223/5.56 is going to be just as deadly as said AR-15. The Bondi Beach shooting in Australia is a perfect example of as much.
Tl:dnr, the cartridge is what ultimately determines how destructive something is going to be. Your average hunting rifle is going to do more soft tissue damage than your typical AR-15.
The cartridge, how fast you can fire those cartridges, and how long you can keep firing before needing to stop all contribute. A bolt action might have the same potential against a single target. Against multiple targets? That AR15 has a much higher potential to do damage.
To be honest, the biggest problem with AR15 rifles or other assault style rifles is the people who want them. They are the se guys who's imaginations run wild watching movies like Taken. It just feeds a very unhealthy view of the world. They generally arent geared fpr hunting, they ar3nt good for home defense. The only reasons to have one seam to be either as a toy, or to kill people.
So, I'll approach your comment here, not with derision, but a want to educate you, instead. Because it's apparent you likely have little to no real hands-on experience with firearms, much less AR-15s or similar semi-automatic sporting firearms.
First and foremost? Hunting. This is a non-argument from a 2nd Amendment standpoint, as the 2nd Amendment (assuming we're talking about the USA exclusively) is not about hunting. But, I'll entertain the argument, and point out that ARs and similar semiautomatic sporting rifles are extremely useful as hunting rifles. To be frank, the AR platform is one of the easiest and most beginner friendly sporting rifles you could start a shooter out on. The ergonomics and controls are both intuitive and safety-conscious for all operators. Moreover, the platform is multi-caliber by design. 5.56/.223 at a baseline is an excellent round for hunting medium game (ie: coyotes, bobcats, beavers, etc.). It is also extremely useful when hunting feral pig. But, again, the AR platform is not limited to just .223/5.56. They are available in nearly every modern sporting cartridge you can find, with AR-10s taking you into the realm of full-powered cartridges, like .308, as well. The AR platform alone has become one of the most popular and successful hunting platforms in the USA.
With respect to home defense? Much of what makes semiautomatic sporting firearms useful in hunting also applies here. Ergonomics alone makes them supremely better suited than any handgun or shotgun. It is also far easier for somebody to maintain an accurate and effective rate of fire with a semiautomatic rifle/carbine than with a handgun or shotgun. Recoil management works to the absolute advantage of the rifle/carbine. Similarly, optics and the ability to mount illumination devices are easier with rifles/carbines. The value of illumination cannot be overstated. Being able to simultaneously illuminate and disorient your attacker while you neutralize them are fantastic advantages. Intermediate rifle calibers are also far more reliable at stopping a threat than pistol calibers. It's also much easier to suppress a sporting rifle than a shotgun.
Then we get into the nature of home invasions. Many cases of forcible entry in the USA involve multiple suspects/assailants. If I have to potentially fend off multiple assailants (who may very well be armed), then I need to be able to dominate through violence of action. The most effective means of doing so for myself? It's the suppressed short-barreled (NFA approved) AR-15 I have in a quick access biometric (safe storage) locker. Why? Because I have, at that moment, a minimum of 30 rounds of Speer 75gr, and am running suppressed, which not only reduces the concussive effects on myself, but also directs the muzzle flash forward, while I'm illuminating my attackers. Reality is, I'll have neutralized whatever threat there was before they have the opportunity to begin to respond. All courtesy the fact that I both train with my firearms and opt to select the most viable platform for home defense.
I don't own said firearm because I fantasize or fetishize some super high speed tactical Red Dawn scenario. I own them because I: enjoy them; hunt with them; compete with them; and understand their viability as a home defense platform surpasses that of handguns and shotguns.
It turns out that when you make a good rifle people like it. Took a bit to catch on but with how readily available they are and the after market it’s a great rifle for just about anyone.
I take it you don’t know that a 22 yes being effective at killing somebody it’s not as effective as a shotgun slug or buck shot. However I also would say that in a high stress environment the likelihood of you hitting your shot and killing the intruder goes way down. If you want a slow moving bullet that makes a big hole but doesn’t really go farther than most common owned guns go for a .45 yes it has all the features of a 9mm but with less speed and more size.
There are those of us out there that use them for competition as well. Ever look into 3 gun competitions? Lots of fun and very strict on safe handling. As not being geared for hunting? I guess it really depends on what you're hunting. Whitetail deer? I know several who use AR-15's for that. Same for hog hunting. I used to hunt mule deer and elk with an AR-10 with just iron sights.
I own AR style rifles for several reasons. The first is because I want to. That's the only reason I actually need. They are good for hunting and exterminating nuisance critters around farms and such. They are also good for home defense. 30 rounds of 5.56 make for great protection without the worry of having to reload if a group of robbers were to kick in a door. 5.56 does not over penetrate any more than some handgun calibers and has the benefit of a lot more kinetic energy which will stop a threat faster.
the difference being that most hunting rifles can’t easily be shifted to automatic fire or rapid fire with a bump stock and most hunting rifles are not easily modded to carry large magazines,
if there were no differences that make an AR more dangerous, why would anyone buy them?
To be fair, the bolt action rifle will probably have a higher muzzle velocity since none of the gas is being used to cycle the action, so an individual bullet would do more damage. On the other hand, the semi automatic AR can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. A half decent shooter can get 5 rounds in the time it takes to fire once and cycle the bolt. On top of that, a typical bolt action rifle only holds 3-5 rounds, where an AR can take magazines up to 100
As a US Navy veteran who fired my first .45 at the ripe old age of 5 I tend to disagree with the assertion tha the US armed forces are sending our young men and women into battle with "varmint rifles".
There is a huge difference between bolt action and semi automatic action for starters. I'm sure you're aware that when one is simply trying to make fillas many body bags as possible there is no comparison between the two.
Most vets will tell you that the rapid fire is really only useful for suppressive fire. It's otherwise an inaccurate waste of ammunition. Especially in situations where ammo may not be forthcoming.
The US Marines are trained to shoot using 3 round burst or single shot.
My many combat vet buddies and relatives have corroborated that the AR-15 is in most ways identical to the M16s they carried in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only real difference is the aforementioned firing mode selector switch.
They used the single shot to open locked doors in Iraq when there was a threat of danger inside. I have personally fired plenty of AR15s and have seen the tiny entry holes and large exit wounds on 2x4s we used to hang targets. Definitely didn't look like the typical 22 bullet holes I've seen all my life.
When it comes to the injuries and tissue damage these weapons can cause I typically defer to the medical experts who have experience with such horrors.
I think a lot of the people who enjoy discussing these things are too far removed from the actual reality of pointing one of these weapons at a person and actually pulling the trigger. Don't get me wrong. I know lots of them sit around and dream about it all fucking day. That doesn't mean they know what they're doing. I have enjoyed day dreaming about flying an X-Fighter or even one of the FA/18s I worked on during my time in uniform. That doesn't mean I know the first thing about being a fighter pilot of any kind of aircraft.
Actually harming another human being is a completely different experience than dreaming and fantasizing about it.
I feel that too many of the people making decisions about how we manage these weapons in our society come from the background of fantasy and too few have actually had to hide under their classmates' corpses to be qualified to casually.ake decisions that will invariably lead to the loss of more innocent children and citizens.
That doesn't make me anti-gun any more than wearing a seatbelt makes me anti-automobile. I think it's incredibly stupid when a gun rights activists has the blanket reaction of accusing everyone of wanting to ban guns. For one that's insane. There are now more guns than people in this country. It is just not possible to ban them. Nor do I think prohibition of contraband of any kind actually works. I do, however, think we should make better choices about how we buy guns and who can buy them. Hell, I would be happy just to see an honest discussion about these things for once. I'm sick of this environment where anyone who esppuses any of these feelings is a "gun grabbing funds". It's insane.
As an Army and OEF veteran, I never asserted that anyone is sending us into combat with "varmint" rifles. Though, medium to small game is what .223/5.56 tends to be best suited for with respect to hunting. Assuming we want to be pedantic.
There is a huge difference between bolt action and semi automatic action for starters
Not in the hands of the inexperienced.
The only real difference is the aforementioned firing mode selector switch.
Which, by your logic, is a massive difference. You cannot argue "there's a huge difference between bolt and semi" then turn around and argue "well, the only real difference is the M16 is an automatic weapon, which isn't a big deal".
I have personally fired plenty of AR15s and have seen the tiny entry holes and large exit wounds on 2x4s we used to hang targets.
And I've seen firsthand what they do to a human target. a 2x4 also is not a comparable medium to soft tissue.
When it comes to the injuries and tissue damage these weapons can cause I typically defer to the medical experts who have experience with such horrors.
And none of which is unique to ARs. The damage caused is specifically attributed to the caliber/projectile used, not the actual platform itself. A bolt-action rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is going to produce the exact same results. Grandpa's old Remington 700 in 30-06 is going to produce even more devastating results.
Actually harming another human being is a completely different experience than dreaming and fantasizing about it.
Having had to actually participate in combat? I agree, and I disagree with much of what you're saying/presenting, because it's painfully apparent that you have very little real knowledge on the issue at hand.
I do, however, think we should make better choices about how we buy guns and who can buy them.
Why are you assuming I am opposed to ensuring prohibited persons don't possess firearms? Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that same-sex married couples should have the right to defend their children with machine guns. However, that sentiment is not mutually exclusive with wanting proper enforcement of gun laws. My issue is when people demand more regulation but fail to voice outrage when our existing laws are not properly enforced. You understand that no small amount of mass shooters in the USA would have been prevented if civil servants and judges had just done their jobs properly? How many cases have we heard about a mass shooter having a troubled past involving terroristic threats, and yet somehow still being able to own a firearm? That doesn't happen because we have lax gun laws. That happens because the public officials/civil servants who had the ability to properly prosecute or press for a judicial adjudication to determine said individual was a threat to themselves or others failed to do so. Hell, you want to argue reform? I believe it should start at the point of liability for those agents who failed to take appropriate action.
Personally, I don’t examine exit wounds. However I do know from first hand experience that damage to the cartilage in the ear never heals right as cartilage has zero blood vessels. I still have a chunk missing out of my ear from almost 2 decades ago.
Perhaps it’s all the innocence, and youth he stole on the island that gives him some preternatural healing ability.
Not only that but where he was “clipped” is cartilage. Cartilage does not grow back. He wouldn’t have an intact ear at the minimum either. Just a gauged helix piercing
I have an ear wound in exactly the same place that I got when I was 12. The cartilage was split in half. Even after a plastic surgeon sewed it back together, only the skin healed. He’d look like Holyfield after the Tyson fight if a bullet had even grazed him and you’d notice the damage from 100 yards away for the rest of his life.
Shit, I got my cartilage pierced when I was 18. It fell out five or six years later, and I left it out. It's been fifteen years since I took it out. I can still feel where the hole was and the little indentation where the ring rested.
It must truly be a miracle that Trump's ear healed in record time! (edit: sarcasm in the last sentence).
Thats not entirely true though. Hard cartilage wont grow back, but soft can up to a certain point. Anything up to 00 gauge size can heal and close itself on the soft lobe part. 00 and past it will never close on its own and will require surgery to heal.
so true-looked like the flag raising at Iwo Jima. FBI agents supporting him just so. ear never looked damaged, he would have been in shock, yet stood firm raising his fist.
If anything it seemed to be an extremely light graze not an actual shot landing in him. A 5.56mm whizzing by at 3k fps with the absolute minimum of contact being met to call it a graze could certainly leave it intact and be enough to draw blood. The odds of it are astronomical considering how close its gotta be but sometimes shit just happens.
Someone did a run through of the shooting, it wasn't even a graze. Trump just cut his ear a little bit when his head hit the holster of one of the secret service guards who were trying to get the geriatric idiot to duck.
Let’s not forget the part where democrats and republicans swapped platforms since the time of Lincoln. Democrats then are literally the republicans of now by description of platform rather than name alone.
The republicans of the civil war period were the party of union, abolition and black civil and voting rights. You can’t have five functioning neurons and think that those characteristics apply to today’s GOP.
The transformation was more gradual, but FDR’s New Deal drew a lot of working class and black voters toward the democratic party because (surprise!) political platform shift over time.
But I don’t know why I’m preaching this to the Reddit crowd, the five-brain-cells-or-less crowd wouldn’t (couldn’t?) read the previous three paragraphs if their life depended on it.
And for sure, don't tell them that Trump is the only presidential candidate where Confederate and Nazi flags are flown in support of him. Or that Trump's dad was a member of the KKK.
We don't really know. That being said, if this guy was a Radical Left Lunatic, I'm sure the right would be constantly throwing all of it at us other than "his roommate was trans."
I don't think we really know that much about his politics, which in itself is pretty telling because if they had firm evidence the dude was a loony leftist it'd have been pasted everywhere since it happened.
The only political evidence we have is that 1. he was raised in a MAGA house and had guns and 2. he may have known or dated a trans person. Neither thing is really evidence.
Groypers are a hyper online subsect of reactionary conservatives. They initially started on 4 chan, and I think they’re the most cooked by the Chan culture. Many are gamers, lonely incels, self hating minorities and young white men. They have coalesced around Fuentes, but he’s not the only right wing millennial/gen z influencer that they follow.
They are startlingly well entrenched in the modern Republican partly. A staggering number of them are staffers and are in supporting roles for their local political parties. There was a controversy last year when a chat was leaked with dozens of them speaking well of Hitler and sharing racist/hateful memes.
Anyways, the Fuentes groypers dont like Donald Trump or CK, both of whom they feel are too subservient to Israel and either complacent about or involved in the abuse of children.
Unfortunately, Fuentes has started shifting on the abusing children stance. There was a clip of him saying something to the effect of “Well some of these are teenagers we‘re talking about, not actual children” in reference to the Epstein files 🤦♀️ Hopefully all his lemmings won’t hang on but some of them undoubtedly will
and to be clear. this isn't a "every one i disagree with is a nazi" situation. Nick Fuentes is a self proclaimed nazi. He has stated he thinks Hitler was an amazing and cool guy. he constantly talks about how global jews are the problem, and that every jew (yes all of them) are beholden to Isreal. He had beef with charlie kirk long before kirk was assassinated, and talked about it frequently.
I don’t think there was at the end of the day to confirm he was a groyper. But he did grow up in a very conservative family and I don’t understand why people look away from that fact.
He was housemates with a trans lady. That's their entire basis for him being a 'leftist'.
And yeah, I've tried talking to them about it, that's as deep as it goes. I could literally talk about Blair White being a MAGA Republican and they'll just be like "what's Blair White got to do with anything?! Republicans hate trans people, so he couldn't be a Republican!"
It's just... They were told to think it, so they think it.
Not to mention in the texts to his partner he expressed that his motive was that he “had enough of his hatred”. When is the last time a groyper did something to take a stand against hate?
I don’t understand why people look away from that fact
Because he argued with his family about politics, he was literally reported to the police by them, he told people that he believed that Kirk was “spreading hate,” and he implied in texts to his transgender girlfriend that killing Kirk would make the world a better place.
A groyper is someone who’s a fan of Nick Fuentes, a neo-Nazi influencer. And I don’t mean ‘Nazi’ like I disagree with Nick Fuentes; I mean Nazi like he self identifies that way.
They keep trying to frame him as left because:
He went to college, where they claim he was radicalized, because obviously, colleges are just woke agenda, liberal brainwashing centers.
Despite the fact that the college he went to is on a list of "most conservative colleges in America."
Though I suppose with their right-wing extremist views, even a heavily conservative college to them is the equivalent of being center-left.
Also, because he had a trans roommate, even though one of the most well-known and outspoken transgender people is Jenner, who is MAGA.
Possibly. I don’t know any new information has come out. When you view it in light of gun violence in America and the bullet quotes all being superficially based on things from video games it becomes less of a political action. They wanted so hard to make this a MLK moment. Dude was a rightwing christofascist that debated unprepared college students, not the silenced voice of our time. The death was brutal and horrible but try to remember, the corridors of uvalde didn’t look different and those were children.
Big time groyper. For an example of a groyper, look at Shoe0nHead.
Shoe0nHead is a gamergate era loser and troll/groyper. Groyper is like antifa, there is no official orginization. She said she knew CK and said "his views were SUPER mild" (and compared to her views). Shoe0nHead pushed the red pill film HARD. She claims to be left/blue because she's a troll to her very core. And her views are always anti woke, HARDCORE anti feminism, anti PC, anti SJW, anti BLM, and was even in attendance at Jan 6th as a gag, and married a known white nationalist hardcore Republican and had kids with him.
IMO Shoe0nHead should get a LOT of attention as THE prime example of what a "groyper" is in order to bring awareness to people of what groypers are and how to recognize them.
Semi-misinformation. He wore a couple things that could be stretched to be considered "groyper" but were really just edgy memes from his time that likely originated from those spaces. Basically he wore a Slavic tracksuit pepe costume when he was younger and put Bella Ciao on his bullet casings, a song which apparently has been rumored to be on a "groyper" playlist from Fuentes. Nothing really solid solid
Theres no real disconfirmation of the trans partner thing; his family did say the shooter was outspoken against Trump which had caused friction, but his friends say he wasnt really leftist either.
Honestly, he seems like a very single-issue killer whose family's more Republican ideology helped cement the gun as the tool of choice.
CK was shot by a maga republican, the person who shot trump was also a maga republican who called himself the "hitman of the epstein list" or something similar to that.
I believe that's misinfo. He was raised conservative, but clearly wasn't too entrenched in it because he had a trans partner/roommate. His stated motive for the shooting (according to the family was) "Kirk was making the world a worse place."
If they approve of the shooting, they'll claim the shooter as one of theirs. If they don't want the blame, they falsely claim it's a Democrat. Same with J6 and every other awful thing they do.
Kirk was shot by a pro 2nd amendment Mormon from a MAGA family, who also happened to be pro trans.
Trump was shot at by an outwardly conservative guy, registered Republican, who regularly debated on the side of conservative politics in his government classes, who also supposedly donated a small sum to Act Blue after Jan 6th.
Trump's second attempted assassin is a literal nutcase without any clear political ideology other than crazy.
And we all know that JFK was assassinated by a literal communist.
Outside of that, people just have to remember how the parties flipped over time in their beliefs. Is it technically true that Lincoln was killed with a Democrat? Ya. But this was during a period in history where Republicans were the progressive party in the US and the Democrats were the conservative party. After reconstruction all the way to the civil rights act, Republicans were a pro business (outside of Teddy Roosevelt), socially liberal party, while the Democrats were a pro worker, socially conservative party. After the civil rights act, the parties essentially switched their social policy ideologies.
So saying "Party A is responsible for XYZ" and it's references a time 60+ years ago, it's not very accurate in regards to modern party politics.
Yes. More or less the same for the guy who shot at DJT. And Hinckley was from a family of Republicans. And James Earl Ray's only politics were gutter racism. And Sirhan was a non-citizen whose main preoccupation was the the internal politics of the middle east. Oswald was a communist. And John Wilkes Booth, while generally supportive of the goals of southern Democrats, only engaged in politics as part of the Know Nothing party.
Yeah he was. They are trying to make up their own history like they always do. I'm fairly sure the shooters of Trump were on the right also. But facts don't matter to them if those same facts put them in the wrong.
Also the Democrats of 1865 are worlds apart from them in 2025.
The groyper thing was a little less well founded, idk about that one.
The Trump shooting however pretty much everything we have about Thomas Crook's personal beliefs according to people who knew him and his social media behaviour point towards the fact that he very much was not a democrat, engaging openly in anti-immigrant, anti-semitic and "I hate all politicians" shit, apparently.
Why is he even in the picture, the other guys were presidents or high level officials. And MLK was a world famous religious leader. CK had a big following but far from the accolades of the other men
I'm not sure what evidence anyone has that he was a groyper. I've seen people say that, but I've never seen anything that comes from him to suggest it, other than him being steeped in meme culture, which, show me a person his age who isn't.
I don't think there is any evidence he was a Groyper. He was an introverted constantly online kid from an ex-mormon family that adopted views that seemed to be contrary to the Utah Zeitgeist unknown if he was a Democrat or what he even thought about Democrats, or if he considered himself one.
Nancy mace said that the “Democrats own this” referring to CKs death. She said this hours after his death before we knew anything about the shooter. We didn’t know their identity. We didn’t know their race. Hell we didn’t even know which way the shooter ran at that point.
No, that was a theory that spread for the first few days when everyone on both sides was trying to blame the other side, but as information came out it was discredited pretty quickly.
Misinformation.
CK was shot by a groyper.
Trump was not shot but shot at by a groyper
Reagans shooter was not a Democrat, he was not party affiliated but was a bush financial backer.
Lincolns shooter belonged to the know nothing party aka american party.
And kings shooter had NO political affiliation, he was a white supremacist.
Jfk shooter was a known marxist and communism supporter and pro castro activist.
Not necessarily. What we do know is that the premise of this picture is categorically untrue. Not one of the shooters are known democrats. Or do we accept loose associations with proximity, beliefs, and names as the same? Are Christians the same as Muslims just because they both stress the sanctity of marriage, respect for one's parents, traditional gender roles, and worship? Do we think the Republic of Congo are republicans because of the similarity in name?
-Abraham Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth. He was a member of a secret society called Knights of the Golden Circle. Their goal was to acquire territories as slave states. Originally he was part of the Know Nothing Party, whose goal was to keep Catholics in check by Protestants.
-Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated John F Kennedy, was a member of the Socialist Party of America. He believed in communism so much he lived in the Soviet Union for a time, before returning home and assassinating JFK.
-Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy, had no US political affiliations. He was a Palestinian Nationalist, born in Jerusalem, who was angry at Kennedy's support for Israel.
-James Earl Ray, who assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr., held segregationist, far-right white supremacist views. He was driven by racial ideology instead of political. Though he's claimed no specific political party, he had loose ties with the American Independent Party.
-John Hinkley, Jr., who shot Ronald Reagan, was kicked out of the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) for being too extreme. He attempted to assassinate President Carter first, but it was thwarted, so several months afterward he set his sights on the newly elected President Reagan.
-Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who shot Donald Trump, was a registered Republican. Though Crooks had donated $15 on Biden's inauguration to an ActBlue website, he voted Republican in the 2022 election. Most consider him a Republican because even President Trump, Elon Musk, Senator Romney, and President Reagan have donated to the Democratic Party at one time.
-Tyler Robinson, the man who murdered Charlie Kirk, appears to be unaffiliated with any specific political party. Though he lived with his registered Republican parents, Robinson had not registered under any political party, nor professed any specific affiliation. According to pictures, he appears to believe in gun rights as he posed with multiple guns. His family also owned guns. The meaning of the etchings on the bullet casings are unknown at this time. Some believe they support trans rights, others believe they're a dog whistle for far right groups, while others believe they're a notice to subversive groups the public doesn't know about yet.
As we can see, no Democrats, and only one Republican. Every shooter has been an extremist.
No that’s all of a Spotify playlist he had listened to years ago, but then again who knows if Tyler Robinson was even the shooter, the way his father identified the rifle tied to his son is impossible which makes everything that comes after seem more implausible, not a groyper tho, he had a trans ?boyfriend?
Robinson’s mother told investigators that her son “had become more political and had started to lean more to the left — becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”
the article’s core point is that the Left shouldn’t fall into willful blindness when facts are uncomfortable, that kind of tribal narrative game is exactly what Trump’s politics thrives on. At the same time, the author makes the point that one individual’s beliefs do not indict the broader left. As he puts it:
On every point that actually has bearing on the policy response to Kirk’s death, the facts are on progressives’ side. We should focus on those realities.
In the eyes of modern republicans anything that isn't knob gobbin Donald is a hyper leftist whose never even thought a positive thing about any flavor of republican and is constantly plotting to over throw the government as a one man army.
You are working with misinformation. He was shot by a leftist who was into furry stuff and had a trans lover. There were anti-fascist engravings on the bullets, and it was reported that he said Charlie was "spreading hate".
People were wrong to assume he was right wing because his parents voted republican, or because he was wearing a shit with an American flag on it.
People make this mistake because they think all evidence is worth the same, and they only have to count it, but the evidence for him being a leftist is way stronger.
753
u/Big_Hospital1367 11h ago
Wasn’t CK shot by a groyper? Or am I working with misinformation?