zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
Leaving personal feelings about the person. What exactly does 2nd amendment guys think using guns to fight "tyranny" looks like? People rising up to a group of people clad on black clothes and an eerily fascist reminiscent symbol ala rickandmorty?

Some people using guns to defend themselves against who they believe are the harbingers of this authoritarian State is 2nd amendment working as intended. Not a "tragic but necessary sacrifice" as some will put school shootings, but actually what right to bear arms is supposed to be about.

And it's immaterial if you ultimately disagree to whether this administration is authoritarian, but these things will keep happening as long as enough people believe that to be the case. It's a feature, not a bug.

>>licebm+j32
You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

>>accoun+r42
Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?

>>blks+c92
Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.

>>mrsopa+za2
Why is the comparison absurd?

>>cman14+Sj2
Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was:

- Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14)

- Virulently anti-Jewish

For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points.

I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.

>>skinke+qz2
I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it.

I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?

>>cman14+OI2
Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.

>>mrsopa+RU2
> Anyone could come and challenge him

This is wrong, it was not a moderated debate. The event was a campaign rally and anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions.

>>bigyab+eX2
> it was not a moderated debate.

How do you figure?

> The event was a campaign rally

For whose campaign, in what contest?

> anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions

According to what policy, cited where? What are "the wrong questions", and how did they apparently not include the ones Kirk was addressing when he was shot?