This is not about gun control. These sorts of events are mainly two-factor problems: 1) Mental health (Westman 2025, Hale 2023, Aldrich 2022, etc. were all deeply mental disturbed individuals with documented DSM V conditions, that should have never been able to own weapons); and 2) Political speech calling for violence in the guise of “resistance”. These events do not happen in a vacuum and as the social and moral fiber family structure breaks down and the political speeches call for violence against their opponents, these events are unfortunately much more likely to happen.
Gun “violence” is for sure one of those things, but gun “control” is not, unless we are going to implement mental health screenings before a person is allowed to purchase a firearm (which will be both impossible and impractical).
So your #1 point does, in fact, implicate a level of gun control. Restricting gun access for people with mental health issues is a form of gun control. Your defensiveness is blinding you to logic.
Mental Health restrictions are a bit of a touchy subject no? Do you consider “gender dysphoria” a mental health, as outlined in the DSM? What if someone has an undiagnosed mental health condition, what are the elements of enforcement for restrictions? What is someone has a mild form of anxiety, but is well regulated on medication, should that bar them from exercising their constitutional rights? Right wingers will want to limit access to guns to the most vulnerable people that may require these protections based on these “mental health” exclusions
2:17 here – was simply replying to the point it’s “not about gun control” when it is. No other argument was made so I’m not sure what this projection is about.
Looked up the article to see if he really said that, and he did. “Kirk’s comments come about one week after three children and three adults were killed at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.”
It’s really… something how Newsweek has the April 2023 article “trending” together with news of him being shot. That’s really something. This kind of thing shouldn’t happen to anyone, unless it’s to prevent imminent severe injury or death.
Comments like this are why the left will continue to lose. Not helping shake the perception that you are the crazy ones. Which seeing as they managed to earn that reputation while trump heads up the other party is nuts.
Why does pointing out a fact – that he did, in fact, say that – make the left crazy? Personally, I think it’s crazy anyone can watch that video and maintain that stricter gun laws aren’t needed. Charlie Kirk, someone who had private security and certainly believes in the right to bear arms, got merked by a weapon of war in an open carry state where the good guys with guns are supposedly there to prevent this kind of thing.
Instead of your immediate reaction being dunking on the left for some reason, why can’t we have an honest discussion about the fact we’ve made this country an unsafe hellhole for everyone by not having COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS THAT EVERY OTHER COMPARABLE NATION IN THE WORLD HAS in place? It could have saved this guy’s life, too.
I would like to engage in this discussion regarding “common sense” gun laws. I am very happy to accept some.
What are they?
– Preventing access to persons who demonstrate mental health problems? (How would this be accomplished exactly?)
– Universal background checks (already mostly in place)
What else?
I hope we can all agree that there will never be gun confiscation/buy back programs nationally. We can also all agree that if a mentally ill person/criminal wants to get a hold of a gun, and does not care about breaking laws, they will be able to do so.
We already have many, many strict gun laws. Is it an enforcement issue?
This. Much of what people want we already have in place. Universal background checks? check. Prohibiting people from buying multiple handguns too quickly? check. Prohibit private party sales outside of an FFL? Check.
Because it is your very first response. Normal people don’t immediately jump to their favorite political points when tragedy strikes. Just the crazies do. Get outside, touch some grass.
Either start a movement to amend the 2nd amendment or sit this one out. There is no comparable nation in the world to the United States of America when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So Dems need to either make an effort to amend it – you know, because gun control is SUPER popular – or shut up.
If you are not a member of the legal community (attorney, paralegal, teacher, etc.) then GET OFF THIS BLOG! Go to a forum more appropriate to and consistent with your educational background.
“So Dumpf should be…”
If Mr. Trump tapped you on the head and made you Cinderella, you would still find fault. Your narrow view is that everything Trump is bad. Your mantra: Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!
Have a nice day.
Guest
Anonymous
September 10, 2025 11:54 am
Whatever political side one is on I just don’t understand the violence.
What did Charlie Kirk do to deserve political violence? He is not an elected official in any government entity, he does not make policy, he is not actively involved in setting or enforcing laws. Speech is not violence. Speech is freedom and must be protected, even if you do not agree with the speaker.
I didn’t say Kirk “deserved” political violence. I also didn’t say the lawmakers in Minnesota gunned down by someone pretending to be a cop deserved political violence.
But it is undeniable that political violence is being fanned into flame. A former US Rep and Fox News contributor just tried to associate the shooting with trans people. Elon Musk declared “the left is the party of murder.” I think the Pritzger, the governor from Illinois said it aptly: “Political violence, unfortunately, has ramped up in this country … I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president’s rhetoric often foments it.”
One can recognize it without agreeing with it, or trying to glamorize it or support it.
What about Gavin Newsom’s rhetoric? Or does it only matter when Trump does it? Gavin said recently to “fight fire with fire, punch them in the mouths, get physical”. Maxine waters said to find Republicans where ever they are, restaurants, businesses, get in their faces. So, yeah, it’s clearly Trump Trump Trump. 🙄
“Hatred” is a buzzword for things I disagree with? Is it hatred to talk about how great America is? Is it hatred to discuss that DEI is not needed or warranted? Is it hatred to talk about biblical values? About the sanctity of marriage, the need to prevent abortions as a form of killing, the need to re-asses gender affirming care for minors, etc.? I am not sure anything that Kirk has ever said qualify as “hatred” rather than a view point you “may” disagree with.
Charlie Kirk stated that: “gay pride is morally repugnant” and that “sexual immorality is the demise of the wicked” (at least those were some tweets he made. Both of those statements are in line with religious teachings of nearly every religious institution on earth. Again, I disagree with both of those statements, but it is acceptable discourse in light of religious texts and those were his personal opinions. In no way did Kirk ever call on imprisonment, death or harm to any of those people, he just expressed his deeply held religious opinions. They are the exact same opinions that the biggest and second religion on earth hold. The same views that the Vatican holds, the same views that Islam holds. Why is expressing these views considered unacceptable and subject to murder?
His discourse was mainstream, religious, and conservative. The only reason he is extreme at all is because the left has moved the goal posts so far and reframed the debate. Find me some “hatred of others” that wouldn’t have been mainstream political arguments (probably for either party) in 2004.
HIs positions were not “mainstream” at least not in any way I hope should be accepted. Some of his positions included: Alleged 2020 election was fraud.
Opposed rape exceptions for abortion
Its worth having gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights
Parents should never let their daughters receive prescriptions for birth control medication for any reason.
Proposed expansion of laws which retaliate against people and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities
Proponent of the great replacement
Liberty requires Christianity
Women should only go to college to marry.
He should not have been killed. But lets not pretend this guy is Ronald Reagan, John McCain, MItt Romney, Brian Sandoval etc.
3:14 PM-Let’s not pretend that the Legacy Media is main stream. The news is so biased today. It is hard to get facts instead of talking heads opinions.
To your point, why is it political violence? Maybe there’s a manifesto that ties this to some larger political reaction. Maybe it’s just personal animus towards a public figure.
He did nothing other than being close to Trump and Vance and respectfully debating those with other viewpoints. A few weeks ago I recall a post along the lines of calling those on the right or who support Trump cult members. It’s that type of lunacy that leads to events like today.
That or maybe the fact that this happens every day in America. In schools, movie theaters, grocery stores, offices… the guns are the factor that separate us from everyone else, not the politics.
“Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
When you declare that “speech is violence” and then repeat ad nauseum that the other side is actively working to destroy the constitution, are literal fascists, and have trans blood on their hands, shouldn’t really be surprised when people act violently. It’s just a game to the politicians, but people take their nonsense seriously.
Guest
Anon
September 10, 2025 1:29 pm
IMO anyone that celebrates violence to a father, is on the wrong path morally. Please consider this is a human being.
All gun violence is terrible. It’s way too common.
Guest
Anonymous
September 10, 2025 4:13 pm
It’s a shame that we need a Constitutional amendment to clarify that a “well regulated militia” does not include abundant individual gun ownership. Scalia got it wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
September 10, 2025 5:12 pm
The shooting of Charlie Kirk was wrong. But how many of those condeming this and praising him had anything to say about Melissa Hortman?
MOVING ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC, the one that is the subject of today’s caption: It’s unconscionable that the Clark County Coroner outright LIED about the cause of death of Walker. This can be unpacked on so many different levels, starting with the perceived or real erosion of trust in the government and proceeding with the civil and legal consequences. How do these people sleep at night? We should be demanding accountability and reform and perhaps federal oversight!
Tell us more about your degree in pathology. This guy is like an RJ reporter out here taking the complaint at face value without understanding what any of it means.
I hope for all of our sakes you are not a lawyer. There is no “verdict.” This is a pre-trial settlement by the state for allegations of conduct by NDOC employees. The settlement by the State has little to no bearing on the allegations against the coroner other than being implicated in some broad theory of conspiracy. Conspiracy and RICO claims are very difficult to maintain or to get past dispositive motions.
That’s the allegation of the complaint as part of a pretty broad ‘civil conspiracy’ theory.
Guest
Anonymous
September 11, 2025 9:40 am
Hello all. I missed the Bench Bar Meeting (Tuesday, September 9) and heard there was a lively debate on a bunch of stuff with the Judges and attorneys. Did anyone attend who can tell us about this. For a while, there was a summary of what occurred but have not seen one in a while. Are any of these recorded?
The NJA and the judges kind of went back and forth on minor’s compromises. NJA was mad that judges would oftentimes not let them collect flat administrative costs billed to the client under contract or collect costs to farm out their subrogation/record collection duties to third parties. The Court said that under the law they have to be able to verify that these costs were “actually incurred” and that flat fees don’t demonstrate that and that farming out tasks traditionally associated with a law firm’s duties might make business sense to a firm, but it’s not a cost allowable under statute. If you want to farm those out it’s a business decision and you should make a business decision knowing you’ll be liable for the costs. The judges also indicated that because these minors are not capable of contracting it’s difficult to find that a minor contracted for flat administrative fees too. NJA attorneys were adamant that it’s in the best interest of the clients to do it this way, everyone agreed to disagree because NJA paid for lunch. Some discussion about having two or three judges handle all compromises or having a single checklist for all judges so there was more consistency in the process. The response to that was “We’ll look into it.”
Oh and one particular NJA attorney implied the judges were out of touch because they hadn’t been in private practice for a long time or maybe ever. Some real constructive comments.
Firstivus maximus meridius.
First to comment, last to realize how little anyone cares.
Charlie Kirk shot at Utah event.
Saw the video. Horrific. I hope he is going to be ok. Political violence is never ok from any side.
Newsweek, April 2023: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment.”
This is not about gun control. These sorts of events are mainly two-factor problems: 1) Mental health (Westman 2025, Hale 2023, Aldrich 2022, etc. were all deeply mental disturbed individuals with documented DSM V conditions, that should have never been able to own weapons); and 2) Political speech calling for violence in the guise of “resistance”. These events do not happen in a vacuum and as the social and moral fiber family structure breaks down and the political speeches call for violence against their opponents, these events are unfortunately much more likely to happen.
It’s about a lot of things. Gun violence is one of those things.
Gun “violence” is for sure one of those things, but gun “control” is not, unless we are going to implement mental health screenings before a person is allowed to purchase a firearm (which will be both impossible and impractical).
Maybe a little less open carry. Maybe a little more enforcement and greater consequences for violating existing gun laws.
I agree with that take! I would also agree with additional expanded background check.
Mandatory liability insurance for negligence would be very logical. (Obviously, intentional acts are a different story)
So your #1 point does, in fact, implicate a level of gun control. Restricting gun access for people with mental health issues is a form of gun control. Your defensiveness is blinding you to logic.
Mental Health restrictions are a bit of a touchy subject no? Do you consider “gender dysphoria” a mental health, as outlined in the DSM? What if someone has an undiagnosed mental health condition, what are the elements of enforcement for restrictions? What is someone has a mild form of anxiety, but is well regulated on medication, should that bar them from exercising their constitutional rights? Right wingers will want to limit access to guns to the most vulnerable people that may require these protections based on these “mental health” exclusions
2:17 here – was simply replying to the point it’s “not about gun control” when it is. No other argument was made so I’m not sure what this projection is about.
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113
Looked up the article to see if he really said that, and he did. “Kirk’s comments come about one week after three children and three adults were killed at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.”
It’s really… something how Newsweek has the April 2023 article “trending” together with news of him being shot. That’s really something. This kind of thing shouldn’t happen to anyone, unless it’s to prevent imminent severe injury or death.
I think we can agree that it shouldn’t happen to anyone and still recognize the level of irony at play.
Comments like this are why the left will continue to lose. Not helping shake the perception that you are the crazy ones. Which seeing as they managed to earn that reputation while trump heads up the other party is nuts.
Why does pointing out a fact – that he did, in fact, say that – make the left crazy? Personally, I think it’s crazy anyone can watch that video and maintain that stricter gun laws aren’t needed. Charlie Kirk, someone who had private security and certainly believes in the right to bear arms, got merked by a weapon of war in an open carry state where the good guys with guns are supposedly there to prevent this kind of thing.
Instead of your immediate reaction being dunking on the left for some reason, why can’t we have an honest discussion about the fact we’ve made this country an unsafe hellhole for everyone by not having COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS THAT EVERY OTHER COMPARABLE NATION IN THE WORLD HAS in place? It could have saved this guy’s life, too.
I would like to engage in this discussion regarding “common sense” gun laws. I am very happy to accept some.
What are they?
– Preventing access to persons who demonstrate mental health problems? (How would this be accomplished exactly?)
– Universal background checks (already mostly in place)
What else?
I hope we can all agree that there will never be gun confiscation/buy back programs nationally. We can also all agree that if a mentally ill person/criminal wants to get a hold of a gun, and does not care about breaking laws, they will be able to do so.
We already have many, many strict gun laws. Is it an enforcement issue?
This. Much of what people want we already have in place. Universal background checks? check. Prohibiting people from buying multiple handguns too quickly? check. Prohibit private party sales outside of an FFL? Check.
Because it is your very first response. Normal people don’t immediately jump to their favorite political points when tragedy strikes. Just the crazies do. Get outside, touch some grass.
Either start a movement to amend the 2nd amendment or sit this one out. There is no comparable nation in the world to the United States of America when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So Dems need to either make an effort to amend it – you know, because gun control is SUPER popular – or shut up.
If you are not a member of the legal community (attorney, paralegal, teacher, etc.) then GET OFF THIS BLOG! Go to a forum more appropriate to and consistent with your educational background.
So Dumpf should be deploying the National Guard to Orem now, correct?
“So Dumpf should be…”
If Mr. Trump tapped you on the head and made you Cinderella, you would still find fault. Your narrow view is that everything Trump is bad. Your mantra: Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!
Have a nice day.
Whatever political side one is on I just don’t understand the violence.
You live in the United States. Our founding myth is based on political violence. The “four boxes used in the defense of liberty” idiom arose here.
I don’t want violence; I don’t advocate violance; but I can still see it fast reaching a tipping point.
What did Charlie Kirk do to deserve political violence? He is not an elected official in any government entity, he does not make policy, he is not actively involved in setting or enforcing laws. Speech is not violence. Speech is freedom and must be protected, even if you do not agree with the speaker.
I didn’t say Kirk “deserved” political violence. I also didn’t say the lawmakers in Minnesota gunned down by someone pretending to be a cop deserved political violence.
But it is undeniable that political violence is being fanned into flame. A former US Rep and Fox News contributor just tried to associate the shooting with trans people. Elon Musk declared “the left is the party of murder.” I think the Pritzger, the governor from Illinois said it aptly: “Political violence, unfortunately, has ramped up in this country … I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president’s rhetoric often foments it.”
One can recognize it without agreeing with it, or trying to glamorize it or support it.
What about Gavin Newsom’s rhetoric? Or does it only matter when Trump does it? Gavin said recently to “fight fire with fire, punch them in the mouths, get physical”. Maxine waters said to find Republicans where ever they are, restaurants, businesses, get in their faces. So, yeah, it’s clearly Trump Trump Trump. 🙄
Violent rhetoric for me, but not for thee! You tell em!
When you make a career out of preaching hatred of others, you shouldn’t be surprised when hatred comes for you. I am sorry for his wife and children.
“Hatred” is a buzzword for things I disagree with? Is it hatred to talk about how great America is? Is it hatred to discuss that DEI is not needed or warranted? Is it hatred to talk about biblical values? About the sanctity of marriage, the need to prevent abortions as a form of killing, the need to re-asses gender affirming care for minors, etc.? I am not sure anything that Kirk has ever said qualify as “hatred” rather than a view point you “may” disagree with.
Saying gay people are influenced by the devil is hatred, even if it’s a view point you “may” agree with. Hope this helps.
Charlie Kirk stated that: “gay pride is morally repugnant” and that “sexual immorality is the demise of the wicked” (at least those were some tweets he made. Both of those statements are in line with religious teachings of nearly every religious institution on earth. Again, I disagree with both of those statements, but it is acceptable discourse in light of religious texts and those were his personal opinions. In no way did Kirk ever call on imprisonment, death or harm to any of those people, he just expressed his deeply held religious opinions. They are the exact same opinions that the biggest and second religion on earth hold. The same views that the Vatican holds, the same views that Islam holds. Why is expressing these views considered unacceptable and subject to murder?
Hatred and unfettered support for private ownership of weapons of war. A pistol wouldn’t have done what that gun did.
His discourse was mainstream, religious, and conservative. The only reason he is extreme at all is because the left has moved the goal posts so far and reframed the debate. Find me some “hatred of others” that wouldn’t have been mainstream political arguments (probably for either party) in 2004.
HIs positions were not “mainstream” at least not in any way I hope should be accepted. Some of his positions included: Alleged 2020 election was fraud.
Opposed rape exceptions for abortion
Its worth having gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights
Parents should never let their daughters receive prescriptions for birth control medication for any reason.
Proposed expansion of laws which retaliate against people and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities
Proponent of the great replacement
Liberty requires Christianity
Women should only go to college to marry.
He should not have been killed. But lets not pretend this guy is Ronald Reagan, John McCain, MItt Romney, Brian Sandoval etc.
Well said
3:14 PM-Let’s not pretend that the Legacy Media is main stream. The news is so biased today. It is hard to get facts instead of talking heads opinions.
Show your work, or is that just your opinion?
🧐
To your point, why is it political violence? Maybe there’s a manifesto that ties this to some larger political reaction. Maybe it’s just personal animus towards a public figure.
He did nothing other than being close to Trump and Vance and respectfully debating those with other viewpoints. A few weeks ago I recall a post along the lines of calling those on the right or who support Trump cult members. It’s that type of lunacy that leads to events like today.
That or maybe the fact that this happens every day in America. In schools, movie theaters, grocery stores, offices… the guns are the factor that separate us from everyone else, not the politics.
“Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493/
When you declare that “speech is violence” and then repeat ad nauseum that the other side is actively working to destroy the constitution, are literal fascists, and have trans blood on their hands, shouldn’t really be surprised when people act violently. It’s just a game to the politicians, but people take their nonsense seriously.
IMO anyone that celebrates violence to a father, is on the wrong path morally. Please consider this is a human being.
All gun violence is terrible. It’s way too common.
It’s a shame that we need a Constitutional amendment to clarify that a “well regulated militia” does not include abundant individual gun ownership. Scalia got it wrong.
The shooting of Charlie Kirk was wrong. But how many of those condeming this and praising him had anything to say about Melissa Hortman?
May her memory be a blessing.
MOVING ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC, the one that is the subject of today’s caption: It’s unconscionable that the Clark County Coroner outright LIED about the cause of death of Walker. This can be unpacked on so many different levels, starting with the perceived or real erosion of trust in the government and proceeding with the civil and legal consequences. How do these people sleep at night? We should be demanding accountability and reform and perhaps federal oversight!
Tell us more about your degree in pathology. This guy is like an RJ reporter out here taking the complaint at face value without understanding what any of it means.
Poster here. Look not at the complaint. Look at the VERDICT. All 4.6 million affirmations.
I hope for all of our sakes you are not a lawyer. There is no “verdict.” This is a pre-trial settlement by the state for allegations of conduct by NDOC employees. The settlement by the State has little to no bearing on the allegations against the coroner other than being implicated in some broad theory of conspiracy. Conspiracy and RICO claims are very difficult to maintain or to get past dispositive motions.
That’s the allegation of the complaint as part of a pretty broad ‘civil conspiracy’ theory.
Hello all. I missed the Bench Bar Meeting (Tuesday, September 9) and heard there was a lively debate on a bunch of stuff with the Judges and attorneys. Did anyone attend who can tell us about this. For a while, there was a summary of what occurred but have not seen one in a while. Are any of these recorded?
The NJA and the judges kind of went back and forth on minor’s compromises. NJA was mad that judges would oftentimes not let them collect flat administrative costs billed to the client under contract or collect costs to farm out their subrogation/record collection duties to third parties. The Court said that under the law they have to be able to verify that these costs were “actually incurred” and that flat fees don’t demonstrate that and that farming out tasks traditionally associated with a law firm’s duties might make business sense to a firm, but it’s not a cost allowable under statute. If you want to farm those out it’s a business decision and you should make a business decision knowing you’ll be liable for the costs. The judges also indicated that because these minors are not capable of contracting it’s difficult to find that a minor contracted for flat administrative fees too. NJA attorneys were adamant that it’s in the best interest of the clients to do it this way, everyone agreed to disagree because NJA paid for lunch. Some discussion about having two or three judges handle all compromises or having a single checklist for all judges so there was more consistency in the process. The response to that was “We’ll look into it.”
Oh and one particular NJA attorney implied the judges were out of touch because they hadn’t been in private practice for a long time or maybe ever. Some real constructive comments.
That NJA attorney hit the nail on the head.
“…everyone agreed to disagree because NJA paid for lunch.” Ha!
Sounds like NJA should have included Snickers in the lunch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5syJjBQ_k6o