A story on NPR played Charlie Kirks words just before he was shot. Followed by Trump trashing dems for all of terrible rhetoric causing just this kind of happening. Somehow I believe Trump's followers will not understand the nuances.
Authorities have not disclosed evidence of domestic terrorism or political motivation in this case. The suspect’s actions seem to stem from personal frustrations related to family and religious issues, not ideology. The investigation is still ongoing, but as of now, the facts do not support a domestic terrorism designation. Prosecutorial focus should remain on the actual merits rather than speculation, ensuring accountability based on the evidence.
Donald Trump should be laboring to unite us around this tragedy instead he’s seeking to further divide. I wish someone within his party would reach over him to try to bring healing
So far the only two Republican official who have taken such an effort are Utah's governor Cox and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barett. The former explicitly included Representative Hortman and others in a list of assaults and explicitly called for peace across the board. The latter said that discourse was too toxic generally and refused to name a side.
But those were individual statements and neither really tone down Trump's ugly turn. As Vance and Miller have made clear today they intend to go far far further, so far that MTG sounds peaceful since she is only calling for divorce not outright confrontation.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a vile and cowardly act—one that demands a renewed, uncompromising rejection of violence in political life. No matter how deep our disagreements, resorting to murder over ideology is a betrayal of democratic values and civic decency. In a free society, people clash over ideas; they do not kill over them.
Thank you for this. I believe it will be necessary to provide a more nuanced understanding of what motivated Tyler Robinson and why he was pushed to that extreme. The right is going to blame the death of Kirk on violent dysfunction among the LGBT community. Tyler Robinson, was likely a closeted gay man struggling to understand himself in a Mormon MAGA family situated in MAGA country in Mormon Utah. Tyler was in love with a trans person. Can you imagine the triggering impact of Charles Kirk's homophobic and transphobic hate speech on Tyler?? We do not condone what Tyler apparently did, but who is existentially at fault and who is the evil one? Kirk felt at liberty to travel around the country saying what he pleased about LGBT people while citing selected Bible passages out of context to justify his bigoted crap. Kirk was the perpetrator of his own demise and he was absolutely irresponsible as a young father to be placing himself and his family at risk with his performative radical right wing rhetoric.
The Constitution affirms that all people are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. But how do we, as a nation, live up to that ideal in practice?
I wish there were a simple answer. Disarming law-abiding citizens—an action many rightly view as a constitutional violation—would not have prevented the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, the plot to assassinate a sitting governor, or the attempted immolation of another public official. Violence isn’t confined to firearms, and it certainly isn’t solved by encouraging unstable individuals to “beat the crap out of a protester,” especially
when their legal fees are promised in advance.
Inciting a mob to storm the Capitol—leading to the death and injury of law enforcement officers, the destruction of historic artwork, and the defacement of marble with profanity—only to later pardon the perpetrators, is not leadership. It’s incitement.
Don’t mistake me for soft-hardheartedness. After more than four decades in law enforcement, I’ve witnessed death and destruction at a level most civilians will never comprehend. My concern isn’t theoretical—it’s grounded in lived experience, and in a deep respect for both constitutional rights and civic responsibility.
Thanks Doug for this eloquent reply. I detest guns. The Robinson family at least seemed to be hunters and not gun fetishists. Can't say that for certain, but Tyler did not do his awful deed with an AR-15. I am OK coexisting with responsible gun owners who keep their weapons away from our vets with PTSD. The death toll by suicide among that demographic is tragically horrific. The Second Amendment absolutists seem to be totally indifferent to the suffering of the men (mostly) who have served our country. Peace.
Matt Dowd was fired from MSNBC on the night of the assassination for saying something similar in talking about Charles Kirk. . MSNBC owes Matt an apology. Similar expressions, What goes around, comes around. As you sow, so shall you reap. I cannot call him "Charlie". Too endearing. I am sorry that happened to him.
The executives at MSNBC would do well to revisit history and philosophy before glossing over Matt’s statement.
His words weren’t about literal swords—they were a warning against any life built on violence, domination, or coercion. That path doesn’t just corrode society; it consumes the individual.
The consequences are inevitable, and they’re anything but noble.
The immediate reaction on responsible media following the assassination was not to do anything that would further inflame the nation. Matt may have missed the memo that he was not to make such statements. The Bulwark was also too nicey nice about Charles Kirk, as was Ezra Klein in the New York Times. I hope MSNBC invites Matt Dowd to return as his insights into national and Texas politics were always spot on.
Seems we're not in a free society if people can be snatched off the streets for the color of their skin or fired from their job for speaking about their thoughts on a political matter.
Most Chiefs of Police would stand with you on this—and so would a long line of court rulings. Using intimidation or brute force as a substitute for lawful enforcement undermines every principle of professionalism.
That kind of behavior may resonate with individuals who’ve never served their country or state, and who take pleasure in watching others suffer.
As for me, I never judged a fellow officer by race, creed, or personal preferences. The only standard that ever mattered in the field was simple: Will that person have my back when we go through the door? Everything else is noise.
I wonder if Charlie Kirk's widow might at some point have second thoughts about her husband's support for no firearms regulations, just as Nancy Reagan did. She got Ronnie to support the Brady law. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/nancy-reagan-gun-control-legacy/
VOTE: The late Justice Thurgood Marshall once affirmed, “Though I may stand in firm disagreement with your words, I would still defend your right to speak them—so long as they do not incite violence or propagate hate.”
Today, the rhetoric from many of our leaders strays far from that standard. When speech veers into incitement or fuels division, it ceases to be protected expression and becomes a threat to civic order.
If this trajectory continues unchecked, the consequences will be grave—not just politically, but morally. In the United States, we correct this by voting!
A story on NPR played Charlie Kirks words just before he was shot. Followed by Trump trashing dems for all of terrible rhetoric causing just this kind of happening. Somehow I believe Trump's followers will not understand the nuances.
Authorities have not disclosed evidence of domestic terrorism or political motivation in this case. The suspect’s actions seem to stem from personal frustrations related to family and religious issues, not ideology. The investigation is still ongoing, but as of now, the facts do not support a domestic terrorism designation. Prosecutorial focus should remain on the actual merits rather than speculation, ensuring accountability based on the evidence.
Donald Trump should be laboring to unite us around this tragedy instead he’s seeking to further divide. I wish someone within his party would reach over him to try to bring healing
So far the only two Republican official who have taken such an effort are Utah's governor Cox and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barett. The former explicitly included Representative Hortman and others in a list of assaults and explicitly called for peace across the board. The latter said that discourse was too toxic generally and refused to name a side.
But those were individual statements and neither really tone down Trump's ugly turn. As Vance and Miller have made clear today they intend to go far far further, so far that MTG sounds peaceful since she is only calling for divorce not outright confrontation.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a vile and cowardly act—one that demands a renewed, uncompromising rejection of violence in political life. No matter how deep our disagreements, resorting to murder over ideology is a betrayal of democratic values and civic decency. In a free society, people clash over ideas; they do not kill over them.
Thank you for this. I believe it will be necessary to provide a more nuanced understanding of what motivated Tyler Robinson and why he was pushed to that extreme. The right is going to blame the death of Kirk on violent dysfunction among the LGBT community. Tyler Robinson, was likely a closeted gay man struggling to understand himself in a Mormon MAGA family situated in MAGA country in Mormon Utah. Tyler was in love with a trans person. Can you imagine the triggering impact of Charles Kirk's homophobic and transphobic hate speech on Tyler?? We do not condone what Tyler apparently did, but who is existentially at fault and who is the evil one? Kirk felt at liberty to travel around the country saying what he pleased about LGBT people while citing selected Bible passages out of context to justify his bigoted crap. Kirk was the perpetrator of his own demise and he was absolutely irresponsible as a young father to be placing himself and his family at risk with his performative radical right wing rhetoric.
Thanks Eric,
The Constitution affirms that all people are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. But how do we, as a nation, live up to that ideal in practice?
I wish there were a simple answer. Disarming law-abiding citizens—an action many rightly view as a constitutional violation—would not have prevented the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, the plot to assassinate a sitting governor, or the attempted immolation of another public official. Violence isn’t confined to firearms, and it certainly isn’t solved by encouraging unstable individuals to “beat the crap out of a protester,” especially
when their legal fees are promised in advance.
Inciting a mob to storm the Capitol—leading to the death and injury of law enforcement officers, the destruction of historic artwork, and the defacement of marble with profanity—only to later pardon the perpetrators, is not leadership. It’s incitement.
Don’t mistake me for soft-hardheartedness. After more than four decades in law enforcement, I’ve witnessed death and destruction at a level most civilians will never comprehend. My concern isn’t theoretical—it’s grounded in lived experience, and in a deep respect for both constitutional rights and civic responsibility.
Thanks Doug for this eloquent reply. I detest guns. The Robinson family at least seemed to be hunters and not gun fetishists. Can't say that for certain, but Tyler did not do his awful deed with an AR-15. I am OK coexisting with responsible gun owners who keep their weapons away from our vets with PTSD. The death toll by suicide among that demographic is tragically horrific. The Second Amendment absolutists seem to be totally indifferent to the suffering of the men (mostly) who have served our country. Peace.
Live by the sword, die by the sword is the original FAFO.
Matt Dowd was fired from MSNBC on the night of the assassination for saying something similar in talking about Charles Kirk. . MSNBC owes Matt an apology. Similar expressions, What goes around, comes around. As you sow, so shall you reap. I cannot call him "Charlie". Too endearing. I am sorry that happened to him.
The executives at MSNBC would do well to revisit history and philosophy before glossing over Matt’s statement.
His words weren’t about literal swords—they were a warning against any life built on violence, domination, or coercion. That path doesn’t just corrode society; it consumes the individual.
The consequences are inevitable, and they’re anything but noble.
The immediate reaction on responsible media following the assassination was not to do anything that would further inflame the nation. Matt may have missed the memo that he was not to make such statements. The Bulwark was also too nicey nice about Charles Kirk, as was Ezra Klein in the New York Times. I hope MSNBC invites Matt Dowd to return as his insights into national and Texas politics were always spot on.
Seems we're not in a free society if people can be snatched off the streets for the color of their skin or fired from their job for speaking about their thoughts on a political matter.
Most Chiefs of Police would stand with you on this—and so would a long line of court rulings. Using intimidation or brute force as a substitute for lawful enforcement undermines every principle of professionalism.
That kind of behavior may resonate with individuals who’ve never served their country or state, and who take pleasure in watching others suffer.
As for me, I never judged a fellow officer by race, creed, or personal preferences. The only standard that ever mattered in the field was simple: Will that person have my back when we go through the door? Everything else is noise.
I wonder if Charlie Kirk's widow might at some point have second thoughts about her husband's support for no firearms regulations, just as Nancy Reagan did. She got Ronnie to support the Brady law. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/nancy-reagan-gun-control-legacy/
Not likely. She's on the Kirk train 100%.
For now. But loss has a way of changing people. As it did with Nancy Reagan.
You're probably right. My political instincts are suspect, but I wouldn't hold my breath about this handmaiden
VOTE: The late Justice Thurgood Marshall once affirmed, “Though I may stand in firm disagreement with your words, I would still defend your right to speak them—so long as they do not incite violence or propagate hate.”
Today, the rhetoric from many of our leaders strays far from that standard. When speech veers into incitement or fuels division, it ceases to be protected expression and becomes a threat to civic order.
If this trajectory continues unchecked, the consequences will be grave—not just politically, but morally. In the United States, we correct this by voting!