He took his strong opinions to the campuses of America and challenged the younger generation to develop, defend and debate their own beliefs.
Here he is debating with Gavin Newsom:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3A7fg23dz4A young life cut down by an assassin. A very sad day for freedom of speech and our country.
When our differing thoughts stop colliding. When we stop acknowledging our differences. When we no longer can find a middle ground where we all can live respectfully...civil war ensues.
Comments
"In 2023, Kirk said that gun deaths are unfortunately “worth it” for the preservation of Second Amendment rights in the United States of America. He was speaking after a mass shooting killed six people, including children, at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee."
Indeed. I don't believe that we should go around killing each other over our beliefs.
Did you have similar feelings the day a MN lawmaker, her husband and the family dog were gunned down by an assassin?
doesn't really help things when ~40% of the nation simply follows potus\rightwing media on which innocent deaths deserve empathy.
maybe alex jones can chime in.
Sobering stat: The second amendment provides citizens the right to bare arms to defend themselves against violence, not perpetrate violence.
Murder by a mass shooter or an assassin is against the law. Defending oneself it not.
I queried your quote and found the following quotes from a Newsweek article I will link.: https://newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113
Charlie paid the ultimate price for thinking gun violence deaths "are worth it".
The second amendment is only 27 words. It says nothing about mental state or age or much of anything. In a literal reading, one would be constitutionally obligated to let a 7-year old own automatic weapons. Or allow a prison inmate to have a gun. Both being vulnerable members of society. The Second Amendment would not, in a literal reading, allow us to take a gun from someone with mental illness and violent tendencies. Or prevent ownership based on prior convictions.
Yet, many use a strictly literal interpretation to argue against any gun constraints. There is no rational dialogue in that mindset. Though I bet that he and his assailant were in agreement on this topic.
The guy abetted social divisions, and wrangled votes for an authoritarian. He turned up the temperature, never down. The fact he may have been eloquent about it, is not really relevant.
I have a female friend who once said, about NFL players who sued over brain injuries, that "they knew what they were getting into". If she ever mentions Charlie Kirk to me, I will say, "He knew what he was getting into". That'll be a hoot!
Some switch was flipped, something clicked and changed the entire Big Picture. These days, the violent barf-heads rule the day. Sad and ridiculous.