He did not support gun violence. Just blatant bad faith.

"That's racist."

"It may involve a race, but it's not racist."

"That's why you said it involved that race!"

Bizarre logic.

Offensive was the wrong word. I meant that it's not racist. It's unhealthy that one would be offended by acknowledging the existence of gang violence.

I understand that. I'm saying that there is no hidden meaning. Gang violence is understood on its face by everyone.

I mean, most gang activity comes from young black men, but that does not mean it's racist to talk about it. I think talking about whether to include or exclude "gang violence" from a conversation about mass shootings is appropriate and not offensive in the slightest.

How do you know the 3 students shot weren't also assholes?

Which progressive's deaths did he celebrate?

You're deranged. From no perspective was it a good day, except for actual Nazis who want people radicalized.

He did not want him bailed about because he supported him. And he explicitly said what he did was not right. https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1587127536122732544

He wanted to bail him out because he believed he was a left-wing lunatic. He wanted people to interview and get information form him, especially during that time when many conspiracy theories were being spread.

Words are only as good as their definitions. If he's operating with different definitions, then the meaning is, in fact, not clear.

Kirk represents the politics of almost half the USA. He wasn't even radical. This group cleanly won a democratic election and will, especially after today, probably sweep 2026.

If you think you're justified killing a democratic majority/plurality, you should entertain the idea that you're actually not the good anti-fascists you think you are.