Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jack Jordan's avatar

Danielle, I agree with your sentiments and insights. Even so, it's important to bear in mind that Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserved. There's good reason not to see Kirk's killing as any more horrifying than Kirk saw other deaths due to gun violence. Kirk's own words are most relevant regarding how to see Kirk's killing:

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

Kirk (speaking for America) said "it's worth it," it "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our" other "rights." Kirk literally said we "have the second amendment" so that our rights regarding arms can (and should) be exercised "to protect our" other "rights." Kirk expressly emphasized that he saw "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."

Kirk's contention that the "the second amendment" enables us "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year" should be contrasted with the words of James Madison in Virginia's Report of 1800 (reiterated by a unanimous SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964) regarding the First Amendment:

the significance of “the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon” is that those particular powers and rights were “deemed” to be “the only effectual guardian of every” American “right.”

No posts

Ready for more?