Blaming the Left For Charlie Kirk's Death

CHARLIE KIRK allegedly embraced some extremely conservative viewpoints. For instance, he believed that no abortions, anytime, for any reason, should ever be allowed by law. He harbored some laughably false conservative biased beliefs, among them that without affirmative action, many of today's successful African-American leaders would be far less successful relying on their own abilities. (So, is he for, or against affirmative action?) Actually, without affirmative action, blacks would be relying not on their own abilities, but on their skin color, which is the problem, a problem they can do nothing about, but their racist overlords could, if only they would. Those who deny the existence of racism perpetuate it the most. Without affirmative action, African-Americans would not be relying on their abilites. They wouldn't be given a chance to. Charlie Kirk is also reputed to have said that a few gunshot deaths are a low price to pay for the second amendment. How could anyone actually say something like that? Evidently, a hard right wing advocate for conservatism and gun rights could. It was good of him to have the honesty to acknowledge that the second amendment causes rather than prevents gun violence, but what did he mean by a "few" gunshot deaths? Are five or ten a few? Are they an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms? What about a few dozen, or a few hundred, or a few thousand? At the precise moment when Charlie Kirk was shot and killed, ten thousand three hundred and fifty other Americans had already been killed by guns this year, and counting. That is the actual price we pay in these United States of America for our sacred right to bear arms, acceptable, or not. Apparently, to America, it is. One must surely admit that we Americans seem to have an exceptionally high level of tolerance for and acceptance of gun violence. Would Charlie Kirk conisder his own death by gun fire an acceptable price to pay for his freedom to own a gun? Some lady Congressperson, a Republican conservative and strident, said, essentially: "By god, all those people who have been calling people like Charlie Kirk and his kind "fscists" had better step up and condemn his murder, post haste". (She really didn't say "post paste"). Consider it done, madam congressperson. Within mere moments after the shot was fired it began to seem obvious that the killer was motivated by political concerns, and that most likely he was a virulent left winger who despised Charlie Kirk for his right wing politics. Indeed that may very soon or eventually prove to be the case. In the event that the criminal is never apprehended, it would present to society and history a fascinating if ultimately moot question to ponder: was the murder in fact politically motivated? More than twenty four hours after the murder, with the murderer still, amazingly, at large, speculation and myth making began. in earnest. Why wait for the answer? Facts are not needed to form opinions. It is certainly not necessary for the murderer to be a hardline left wing Trump hating Democrat for the blame to be placed on the entire Trump hating left wing community, its activists, ideals, and its allegedly inflamatory rhetoric. This irresistable narrative is already being constructed out of thin air and whole cloth, and will be pushed hard by Trump and his MAGA gang, without even the reinforcement of a suspect with known motives. It is not difficult to imagine the conservative American community overplaying this card, thus creating even greater national division, and not even caring.