Unlikely. His motivation was to oppose Charlie Kirk from “spreading hate.” That group’s objective would have been the opposite. He was radicalized by the far left.

Like the guy who recently murdered the children at the Catholic school in MN?

For those who cannot get around the paywall:

A preliminary and unverified report circulated inside the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that ammunition recovered with the rifle used to kill Charlie Kirk appeared engraved with statements “expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology.”

WSJ doesn’t often get it wrong. They have a source. I wouldn’t have posted this from Breitbart or Gateway Pundit.

Headline: Ammo Found In Charlie Kirk Assassination Engraved With Pro-Trans, Anti-Fascist Ideology

Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ammo-found-in-charlie-kirk-assassination-engraved-with-pro-trans-anti-fascist-ideology-wsj/ar-AA1Mmwvp

Given that the reaction from media on the left also shows a very different reaction Kirk vs. Hortman, I think your estimation of the difference between the two is not reflective of what’ll be the final reaction to these two events.

I think the difference is celebrity. Nobody knew who Hortman was. Even after the attack, most people just knew it was some politician from a state legislature, not a name or a face. Kirk is very well known and his murder will have a much greater impact.

1. Gaza belonged to Egypt. Egypt does not want Gaza back, nor does Egypt want a single Palestinian to cross their border. No aid, no refugees, no restoring older borders for Palestinians to be once again inside Egypt. It seems that Gaza as a spoil of war is a spoil that nobody wants because nobody wants to deal with the people that come with the territory.

2. Your citation of article III doesn’t say what you think it says. Political organizers are partaking in hostilities as are anyone in the supporting political apparatus of the attackers. Those who have laid down arms are soldiers in combat who have surrendered. If Hamas wishes to lay down arms and surrender, this ends. That’s what should happen. Hamas should surrender, every one of them, and all their arms. They need to give the people of Gaza an end to this war and Hamas’ surrender is the surest way for this to happen. Perhaps it is the only way it’ll happen. That said, we all know Hamas has no intent to release any other hostage and has no intent to ever surrender. They will all die and they will take as many civilians with them as possible.

State level politicians are less likely to have impact outside their state. Nobody knew Hortman. Kirk was known by virtually everyone. Much bigger impact, much bigger reaction.

To those who want to be flippant, this is not the time. The response will be terrible and become a setback that’ll last generations.

The same occupation after Israel’s Arab/Palestinian neighbors went to war against Israel and lost? Imagine what would be the situation today if Israel’s neighbors instead sought to cement the then-declared borders and work for peaceful relations. War’s consequences can be long-lasting.

Non comabattants can’t be killed and even combattants not in fighting position can’t be attacked

According to who? Geneva convention disagrees. And I think most of us here will cheer when Ukraine lobs a missile at a base in Russia, taking out non-combatant military officers or civilians operating oil refineries.

Didn’t Hamas make themselves fair game after the October 7th attack?

Regarding long-term homeless in the US, isn’t most of that attributed to mental health & drug/alcohol abuse? I understand short-term homelessness is different.

Sounds like the government isn’t cutting spending, it is shifting spending because more people are on Medicaid.

That first sentence doesn’t make any sense. What are you trying to say?

These are examples of the “nearest, most local competent party available.” Part of that metric seems to be political will, which is a subset of competence.

I think the root of this is a misunderstanding of Subsidiarity. Problems should be solved by the nearest, most local competent party available. That means I don’t barge in and try to solve another family’s problems when they are capable of solving them theirselves. The federal government shouldn’t regulate signs in my residential neighborhood. Neither should the state. It should be the local government, my neighborhood association, of me making a decision for myself.

Nowhere in subsidiarity are we understood to be relieved from the moral obligation to be charitable. Yes, if your funds are limited, you direct them to the area of your greatest competence & the greatest need. Give a coat to your neighbor next door before you give a coat to someone across town … but if you have the funds for two coats, give them both.

I think the bottom line is if your heart is in loving your neighbor, you are going to get it right. If it isn’t, you’ll find something in the above as an excuse to not give a care about someone else.

I have my flaws. Thank you. But what about the topic we were discussing? Is that all you had to contribute?

I support the disarming and surrender of Hamas very specifically because it is for the good of Palestinian people. This is the surest way to stop the genocide. One Hamas is eliminated, everyone should recognize Gaza as an independent nation. They should be made to have a pacifist constitution and no offensive military capacity as a requirement for recognition.

Actually, I do not support murder or rape. Israel does have a right to retaliate against Hamas, assuring their complete surrender or annihilation, but they also have a duty to civilians that do not cooperate with Hamas. My speaking out against Hamas should not be understood to mean I support all actions of Israel.