Student Satire Site at Columbia Makes Vile Joke About Charlie Kirk Assassination
“In typical conservative fashion, it seems, Turning Point USA only realizes how terrible their politics are when it f—s with their own lives. Go figure”
Columbia University may technically be an Ivy League school, but it’s also a dirtbag school. They prove it over and over again.
FOX News reports:
Columbia student satire site jokes about Charlie Kirk’s death
Columbia University’s student-run satirical newspaper, The Federalist, published an article on Wednesday roasting Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in the wake of his assassination because of his support for gun rights.
The article, published just hours after Kirk’s death, satirized the staunch Second Amendment advocate being shot and killed, with the headline, “Turning Point USA Undergoes Unexpected Ideological Shift, States Second Amendment Actually Not That Important Anymore.”
“‘The Turning Point USA leadership team recently convened to discuss the role of the Second Amendment in our propaganda, I mean, education. We’ve decided to reconsider our stance on gun control and personal freedoms. This decision was made completely independently of recent events,'” the mock statement written by the satire site read.
“‘Guns kill people. That is a truth that we have only recently learned. It turns out, ignoring all of those public health experts and grieving parents and nationwide statistics wasn’t a good idea. Our bad!'”
The short article continued, slamming both the Turning Point USA organization and conservatives at large for their “terrible politics.”
“In typical conservative fashion, it seems, Turning Point USA only realizes how terrible their politics are when it f—s with their own lives. Go figure,” the outlet concluded.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
ck didnt say he wants people to be shot in order to preserve freedoms
he stated the obvious
that people will be shot and that doesnt mean the rest of society should lose their freedoms
mlk jr made speeches about “not being around” ( he of course knew he was marked b/c of his beliefs)
that didnt mean he deserved to be hurt so that others may prosper
I think he said more than that. If I recall correctly, he said that preserving our freedoms is more important than saving lives — which is obviously true. Even if “gun control” could save lives — which it can’t — we would still oppose it, and accept the excess deaths as the price for freedom, just as we accept the excess deaths that result from the fourth, fifth, eighth, and first amendments.
If freedom wasn’t worth more than lives then our ancestors would have been wrong to fight for our freedoms, and we would be wrong to fight to defend them; and if we didn’t, we would quickly lose them.
But if we accept the premise that it’s worth sacrificing freedoms in order to save lives, then let’s start with the fourth and fifth. We can easily prevent thousands of violent crimes, including murder, robbery, and rape, by ignoring those two amendments. But we don’t, and the same people who demand that we ignore the second would be horrified at the suggestion. Which shows that they agree freedom is worth more than lives.
They should rename their newspaper, “The Babylon D-.”
(I should have written it as “D-minus,” it wasn’t an abbreviation for a vulgarity.)