First, before we get into what Charlie Kirk actually said, let’s ask a more fundamental question. Why did Charlie say what he said?
He didn’t say what he said because he prioritized hunting above the lives of kids.
He didn’t say what he said because he prioritized guns over self-defence against personal violent attack.
He said what he said because the second amendment is there so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government.
Charlie Kirk was shot through the neck, sitting under with the words “prove me wrong” printed on it. He said “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.” He was right.
He had a security team around him, all armed. He spoke in the days before his assassination, that he knew the Left was out to kill him. He still held to his convictions, even to the end of his life.
I remember what Leftists said after his murder. From social media to mainstream media, they said he was an awful person and got what was coming to him. And one of the most repeated things that was said was, “Well, he said it was worth it for the guns!” “He wouldn’t even budge on assault weapons in order to save kids. He deserved it!”
The attempt to excuse the murder of a man because he said that believed in the right to keep and bear arms is appalling – regardless of the reasons for which he held that belief. It deserves no counter response – though we must give one. Giving a response is what mr. Kirk often did.
First, take guns out of the equation if you can’t understand how evil this is. Let me give you a story for comparison. Imagine of a random man, say his name is John. John said one day that the risks of driving were worth it for the ability to travel. Then, he tragically died in a car crash because someone else was driving while intoxicated. Then that very same day, some people said that he deserved it because he said that driving cars was worth the risk. THAT is the logic. That is how disgustingly horrible this demonic attack is.
For another angle on this topic, watch this:
Charlie Kirk said that liberty comes with a price. There is a price to pay for having an armed citizenry in order to counter a tyrannical government. He made the argument that 50,000 people die driving every year. That’s a price. If we banned driving, we’d have 50,000 less deaths. Yet, we’ve decided that the benefit of driving is worth it.
Charlie Kirk, in the same breath that he talks about the price (gun violence), talks about the reduction of that price. And he couldn’t understand why the most universal and simple step towards reduction hadn’t been taken. “If our money, and our sporting events, and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?”
He knew that there would always have to be some price though. He believed that the price was worth it in order to secure all other God given rights. He said that it was rational deal. That people who thought otherwise probably weren’t familiar with what the founders of America wrote, or the history of the twentieth century. He did not think his opponents were necessarily outright monsters for putting children at greater risk than their banks, sports, and travels.
Yet, they seem to condemn him as a monster. Maybe it’s because they’ve never actually considered what he said and why he said it. Maybe they just a 10-second clip. Maybe you can share this with someone whose been lied to about what this man believed?
Discover more from Standing Before God, This We Are and No More
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.