I got into pointless arguments online after Brian Thompson was murdered and so many were quick to celebrate because they viewed it as just. Just making the basic argument, “we don’t settle policy differences with violence in this society, and if that became routine, it wouldn’t be a society any of us would want to live in.” But so many pushed back and argued that, essentially, it’s ok to kill as long as you feel strongly enough about something, and it doesn’t hurt if you’re also photogenic like Saint Luigi (this argument could defend abortion clinic shootings as well, but it’s gauche to notice that). This is where that leads. Is this what anyone wants?
The moderate left pays way too much attention to the extreme right, and the moderate right pays way too much attention to the extreme left. If moderate Americans of either stripe don't wise up to this dynamic, and how it distorts our perception of where our society's dangers lie, we will cede our political system to destructive extremists. We could lose it all.
Kind of hard to buy this when it was the moderate/mainstream right that have stood behind the January 6 coup attempt and still can't safely say out loud that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Charlie Kirk himself was "moderate" right and supported raising monry to bail out the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband. The "moderate left" mostly pays attention to the actual leaders and highly influential insiders of the Republican Party who run the country, and it's a worrying picture.
J6 was too little, too late. And Biden did steal the 2020 election. Explain the 15+ million votes that appeared for him, that didn't exist during any other election, or the actions of the many Leftist poll workers to hide their actions.
Your nonsense shows that we aren't on the same team any more. Debating who is at fault is no longer relevant, it is Us versus Them.
Explain where Biden's "extra votes" came from? I assume you're talking about the 16 million over what Hillary got? And you think that means he stole them? Are you serious?
Donald Trump himself got 12 million more votes than he did in 2016. I guess that means he stole them too?
We had 330 million people in this country in 2020. Probably around 250 million of voting age. And 155 million of them voted for Biden and Trump combined. That still leaves almost 100 million who didn't vote.
There's your explanation for where Biden's 16 million extra votes came from. From the roughly 125 million people who didn't vote in 2016—almost half rhe electorate—28 million of them decided they didn't want to sit this one out because they either really hated or really liked Trump.
And the hate-to-like ratio was about 4:3.
This isn't rocket science. It's simple math, and you could have easily figured this out if you'd just checked the numbers.
But you read some little snippet somewhere posted by some conspiracy theorist and abandoned your critical thinking capacity, because you apparently wanted a reason to hate your fellow Americans.
We can't survive when people like you aren't even trying.
You don't understand the argument. Total votes for both parties is usually roughly the same, some in the middle go back and forth. Super popular people like Obama increased the total by a bit, but not nearly as much as Biden did. Biden couldn't fill a small town high school auditorium for his "rallies" yet somehow hordes of people decide to vote in 2020. If they hated Trump so much, where were they in 2024?
You completely ignore all the video evidence of Leftist poll workers breaking laws to create votes out of thin air.
We aren't the same people, the same nation. We just happen to share a citizenship created by paperwork. The sooner we all split up, or you all disappear in smoke, the better.
Where did all those Trump hating voters go in 2024? Well I'll tell you one thing—you don't see me suggesting that Republicans must have stolen the election because of it.
Before I get to the main point, I'll invite you to share any supposed accounts of Democratic poll worker misconduct you think didn't end up getting debunked, because there were lots of them and they all turned out to be nonsense.
The video of poll workers closing the shutters on supposed Trump poll monitors? They already had monitors inside; those were extra Trump supporters who showed up to harrass the workers.
The supposed thumb drive passed between Georgia poll workers? A stick of gum. Rudy Giuliani got his ass sued off for making two innocent poll workers' lives such a living hell they had to move away from their home. And now he's broke and miserable, disbarred in the state of New York for his overall unethical conduct and dishonest representation of Trump.
Oh, then there was the guy who was so convinced he'd spotted a truck with fake ballots that he chased it down and forced it open to find it filled with refrigerator parts. Oops!
There was the Antrim Michigan crowd who were investigated by a Republican state congressman, who found that their claims were so fraudulent and lacking merit he recommended them for prosecution to the state AG. A god-fearing, Trump supporting politician who then had to endure the scorn and abuse of his neighbors and former friends.
That's just a sampler of the mass hysteria drummed up by unscrupulous parties after the election, most notably Trump himself.
Now, as to the election numbers, you're making a mistake by crediting the 2008 turnout bump to Obama. At the time, it was a record bump—about 17 million if I recall correctly.
That was an anti-Republican bump. The Bush backlash that began in 2006 when Democrats swept into power in the House. Not only did Obama win but Republicans were crushed up and down the ballot.
Studies have clearly shown that negative partisanship fuels voters more than anything. That's why the party in power tends to get slammed in the midterms—even the mighty Democratic unified government from the 2008 election fell hard in 2010.
That's your answer to why Trump got more votes in 2024. Americans have short attention spans and poor memories, and largely don't understand the issues they vote on. They bought in to the Republican bullshit that inflation was Biden's fault (it was a worldwide phenomenon) and stupidly thought that putting Trump back in office would restore the economy of 2019, failing to see through the utter incoherence of his economic proposals.
And a bunch of *exceptionally* dumb pro-Palestinian American activists convinced themselves that Trump would end the war in Gaza, by doing something other than telling Netanyahu to hurry up with getting the Palestinians out so he can build a resort. Furthermore, a bunch of young Zoomer males who were in middle school during Trump's first term and didn't know any better got taken in by the Manosphere, and even certain well meaning but ignorant influencers. Who are now starting to realize how duped and used they were by a con-man with no moral fiber and a party establishment too scared to stand up to him.
Meanwhile, the legitimate media were utterly perplexed as to how to cover a Presidential candidate who by any reasonable measure was a dangerous threat to the country, while still maintaining some semblance of neutrality, while right-wing media continued to be their shamelessly dishonest, propagandizing selves.
Look dude, we aren't going up in smoke and neither are you. America has never been "one people"—at many points in our history we were at each other's throats, but it really did seem to be settling down toward the end of the Cold War. But it was something of an illusion, as the American right found it way too easy to reclaim power in Congress with demagoguery and stoking of social and cultural grievance.
I don't want to get into a history lesson or a back and forth about who started this or that. Let's just say the biggest factor in our modern era of polarization has been the Internet and social media. It was largely responsible for both the rise of Trump and the leftist hysteria of the late teens through 2021. And now everyone hates each other.
Are you really OK with that? I don't know who you are or where you're from, but I'm willing to bet that policy wise we'd agree on more than you'd think. I don't hate you, but I can tell you there are people who very badly want and need us to hate each other so that they can remain in power. You've got to realize that you're being manipulated by those people. I'm sorry to lecture you like this, but it's the truth.
I know that I swim in a similar pool of vitriol and outrage, much of it justifiable in my opinion. But I haven't submitted to conspiracy theories about a fake Trump assassination attempt or a stolen 2024 election. That's what matters. Opinion is meaningless if we can't agree on basic reality. You've got to let go of the garbage you collect from online junk peddlers who want us at each other's throats, or this idea of us needing a national divorce becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Biden's message in the 2020 election was that covid was dangerous and you should stay home. Trump's was that it wasn't that bad and you should be fine coming out.
Failure to correct for this very obvious thing in an analysis has 2 explanations, neither of them good.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Trump did downplay the threat of covid, which turned out to be correct. He also pushed for vaccines (operation warp speed) and common-sense precautions like limiting travel from China.
I highly doubt many people switched their vote over covid, one way or the other.
So very, very well said. The USA is a "middle of the road" country. 70% or more of us are "moderate" in our thinking... close to the middle even if on one side or the other. The extremes of the left and right are destroying our nation. In their minds it's "all or nothing". It's up to the 60 to 70% of us to stop cow-towing to the extremeists. It's time for the media to stop kneeling to them for the sake of clicks and views.
Indeed people in this country should not be murdered for political speech - or for going to the grocery store or school or church. Gun violence in this country in a singular sickness and one I hope we can find the humanity to confront. Mr. Kirk said he believed that deaths “every single year” from gun violence were the price we have to pay to have the second amendment to protect our “God-given rights.” I deeply disagreed with him on this and virtually everything he ever said. But there is nothing okay about the ease with which people can obtain and shoot guns at people for any number of indefensible reasons including to silence the speech of someone with whom you disagree. I will pray for his wife and young children as I do for all victims of gun violence in this country.
No matter how you feel about the relationship of this country with guns, it is too late to do anything about it. There are probably close to 500 million guns in civilian hands and are easy to build from scratch. I guess we will soon find out if Charlie’s thesis is correct. Will we stop and walk back from the abyss? I think so. Political violence doesn’t lead to civil war unless political leaders believe they can impose their will through force. This is a delusional position given the availability of arms in this country. I think the most likely scenario is the political violence in the U.S. and Western Europe in the 60s or at worst the Irish troubles.
Agree 100%. Just one correction: the Dems in Congress did not object to the moment of silence, they objected to Representative Boebart's request for a spoken prayer after the moment of silence they all observed.
A good essay, but it falls on deaf years. Just read the comments here. We have entered a dark period and both sides have brought us here (and to answer one of the comments below, in this case and most recently, the violence definitely comes from the Left, but the Right did its part prior to that). Of course, right now, one would hope that all those great minds on the Left would stop pretending that this violence doesn't exist. Maybe if the media tried to go back to a non-partisan perspective, there would no longer be an "us" versus "them."
I might not always share your opinion, but I will fight tooth and nail for your right to free speech. Because freedom doesn’t mean agreement—it means the courage to let truth and lies wrestle in the open without a censor’s blade deciding for us.
We will not be silenced. Not by algorithms, not by governments, not by mobs demanding conformity. A voice once surrendered is a freedom lost forever. And every time one of us speaks, even when it rattles the crowd, it keeps the fire alive for all of us.
“it’s worth [the] cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Charlie Kirk
As you sow, so shall you reap.
I’d further note that for the first time in our history, we have a president of the United States who has frequently and openly espoused violence in support of his agenda, who incited violence on his behalf and who then pardoned the violent because they had been violent on his behalf.
I do not in any way condone what happened to Charlie Kirk, or to anyone else along any part of our political spectrum, but when violence is espoused from the top, no one is safe.
Another "I don't condone, but..." apologist, I see. The 'but' indicates exactly the opposite of the claim that you say you don't condone. Your speech indicates otherwise.
Actually you don’t. Being against violence has nothing to do with suggesting that its espousal by the President of United States doesn’t help and may indeed hinder efforts to end it.
The term 'but is used here as "used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned." That's the dictionary definition. Note the importance of 'contrasting'. I point out how that usage 'contrasts' your claim to not condone and, of course, you think some fault lies with me. May I suggest that you make the very effort you want others to make yourself. Condemn the action and the motivation behind it. Don't mitigate this condemnation by suggesting some portion of blame belongs somewhere else.
He likely meant accidental killings due to ignorance about gun safety. This was not accidental, it was murder. And, it's likely that being called out on the spot and not having time to think his response through, he committed the sin of broadbrushing.
And, even if he did mean to include murder in that statement, you gloating over his death just shows how immature you are. You don't want the best for this country. You just want to be right. You want your "gotcha" moment. The man had a right to his opinion and didn't deserve to die for it.
We are all Americans, a nation of people with a variety of opinions. Learning to agree to disagree peacefully is one of the things that holds us together. If you and others like you continue to justify political violence, we are going to lose everything that is good about this country. I served in the military to protect our core values from foreign aggression. But, I can't protect the country from people like you who root for its demise.
I hope you grow up, acquire some wisdom, and learn to exercise some humility. It would benefit not only you, but the country as well. Be well.
“He likely meant”. He could as easily have meant just what I suggested he meant.
In any case suggesting that a man who advocated for a country flooded with guns may not have understand the irony of his death by gun violence is not ‘gloating’.
I never either advocated or justified political violence. Do not project your biases on me.
I too served in the military, back when over 50,000 of my brothers-in-arms died in a hot wet hell neither we nor most of our country ever truly understood, prolonged by the misinformation and lies of a government who, even if begun with the best intentions sold us down the river. So I don’t need any lectures about militarily defending our core values. We haven’t truly done that since 1945. Rather we’ve wasted tens of thousands of young American lives in three different distant wars we didn’t really understand and in which we never should have involved ourselves..
I am not rooting for our nation’s demise. I’ve taught our history for over 40 years, I know what we are supposed to stand for, and I know when and where we’ve done so and when and where we have not.
I also know that the current President of the United States is attempting to bring about our demise as a Republic, and he’s only too happy to promote violence in pursuit of that end.
If you can factually dispute anything I’ve said her, either in my own words or in my statement of facts, please do so.
You belie your position with your own inflammatory rhetoric. “A country flooded with guns…” Perhaps he believed, as I do, that goverment should not be the sole possessor of force of arms; that citizens have a right to arm themselves against tyranny; that no human system being perfect, some casualties are an acceptable loss to preserve gun rights.
Certainly we believe that some casualties caused by vaccines are worth the benefits of vaccinating the whole herd. There is nuance here that you are not granting.
And I think you are enjoying this irony just a bit too much. Many people say many things that may not be so well thought out but that doesn’t mean they deserve death. Your sanctimony in pointing out the irony of his statement and the nature of his death leads me to believe that you do actually believe that Mr. Kirk deserved death. Regardless of whether you are advocating for it or not, you are deriving satisfaction from it. And that is abhorrent enough.
And I agree with you that the conflicts we have engaged in since WWII were wasteful and likely unnecessary. But, it’s easy to exercise hindsight after the fact. I’ve studied that era and people were terrified of Communism, for good reason. In spite of this, had I been old enough, I would have marched against that war, just like I marched against the Iraq War. I used to belong to Veterans for Peace because I don’t believe in squandering American lives or treasure on rich men’s games/fears.
I’m not going to argue with you on Trump. I have my opinion and you have yours and we can agree to disagree, peaceably, and uphold the brilliance of the Constitution by NOT killing each other. I did not agree with Mr. Kirk on many issues, but his death is horrific to me and indicates that we as a nation have become a people who are willing to leverage violence to chill speech and coerce ideological frameworks. This is as anathema to me as it should be to you, who also took the oath.
Thank you for your service, whether given under duress or not. You did your duty and for that, you have my respect. Be well.
I’m not sure how describing a nation in which there are 1.2 guns per person as 'a country flooded with guns' seems inflammatory to you. It seems entirely factual to me. And the math is equally compelling. The more guns t there are, and the easier it is for anyone to get ahold of one, the more likely it is that they will be used by anyone who thinks them a way to solve whatever issue they think needs solving. Whatever the actual motive of the Utah shooter turns out to be, we can be sure he felt a gun was the way to solve whatever issue he had with Kirk. It ought to be clear that this is a far cry from anything the Founders had in mind.
As to Mr. Kirk’s death, I remind you again that irony is not advocacy. That is a nuance you seem to ignore.
"Certainly we believe that some casualties caused by vaccines are worth the benefits of vaccinating the whole herd. There is nuance here that you are not granting.”
That seems an entirely false analogy to me. The Founders lived in a time and place in which the kinds of weapons available were so different in quality and capacity than today’s as to constitute a wholly different level of lethality. Further, like so many supporters of gun rights, you seem to ignore the clear limiting caveat implicit in the opening clause of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the idea that a bunch of gun toting individuals protesting tyranny in today’s mechanized and technically advanced society would result in anything but slaughter or at a long stretch anarchy is a fantasy. Ballots not bullets is at the heart of our Republic. If the ballot fails, bullets will not resolve the issue.
The fact that you refuse to engage on the subject of Donald Trump strongly suggests that you are to some extent in agreement with his all-out assault on our Republic, which belies your earlier assertion that it is the demise of that republic that I am seeking.
One of liberal democracy’s great gifts is the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of violence. But we are rapidly losing it. Yascha, this piece is tremendous and couldn’t have come at a more crucial moment! RIP Charlie Kirk (1993-2025) 🕯️May his memory be a blessing! I’m shaken by this tragedy. That this could happen in the United States of America isn’t surprising but is still nonetheless so, so tragic. We’ve got to reunify this country!
That violence was coming from the Left, not from Charile Kirk. Designate someone a "fascist threat to the Repubic" and someone's likely to take a shot at him.
Designating someone who is a fascist threat the to Republic as fascist threat to the Republic isn’t the problem.
I’m not suggesting that Charile Kirk was such, but as I noted below, his own words concerning the Second Amendment do seem to have come back to haunt him and his family. Nor does it help that the President of the United States has openly espoused violence as long as it is done on his behalf.
After all, political violence is a deep part of our DNA. We were born in violence, and we’ve been plagued by regular episodes of it ever since. But when our president espouses it, we have come to a whole new level.
As has been said many times, guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are thousands of gun laws on the books and none of them have stopped illegal guns, or shooters who steal, lie or use other methods to obtain the guns they use. If they couldn't get a gun they would use a knife, bomb, or car. The killer on the train in Charlotte didn't have a gun. Gun control advocates never acknowledge the many times legal guns are used by citizens to protect themselves and others. Everyone must stop glorifying and excusing violence, and swiftly punish violent people, then maybe we will have less violence.
I’m sorry, but that’s asinine. You are right in a perfectly literal sense that a gun lacks the ability to make any kind of decision an thus cannot choose to kill anyone. But to argue that is to argue in bad faith and I think you know it. A gun makes it easier by an order of magnitude to kill someone, especially at a distance. You could kill someone up close with a knife or a gun, but good luck at 50’ with that knife. And that, of course is the point. That’s why we don’t throw spears in wars anymore. Distance and killing power in one package. You can’t just reload your spear, right? You could argue bows are similar to a gun and in a sense you would be right, but the convenience favor of a firearm is leagues better than that of a bow and arrow. Can’t exactly put a short bow in a holster for concealed carry now, can we, Deborah?
The right to murder at a distance is not a right I think worth having in civilized society. You should be ashamed of yourself for providing cover for those who would murder children in schools, just like Charlie Kirk. And that is monstrous.
You know nothing about responsible gun culture, quite clearly. Responsible gun owners take very seriously the power of weapons and the absolute requirement to own them safely and use them properly, for protection and not for destruction. You don't hear about all the times that legal guns, properly used, have protected innocent people from becoming victims, because that is not the "narrative" the media wants to tell. People have attempted to do surveys to find out how many tragedies were averted by safe gun use, but the liberals who run our institutions don't want to know and bury the results of the surveys, plus canceling the people who do the surveys. So go outside the media narrative, learn about real gun culture, and don't shame me for being part of a reality you don't understand.
I grew up in a small town; I understand American gun culture just fine, thank you very much. I’ve also lived abroad in two foreign countries for years with restrictive laws on weapons, and missed none of it at all. I currently live in the United States.
Let me be clear: “responsible gun owners” are generally not the problem. The massive amount of guns circulating through the country is a problem because they get into the hands of irresponsible gun owners. Put another way, if we make nuclear weaponry legal to own with say, a background check and waiting period, don’t really care how responsible most nuke owners would be, since it only takes one of them to destroy everyone I care about.
I don’t care for the haughty, superior attitude you’re taking here. This isn’t theoretical, or an issue of principle for me. I’m talking about the threat from tools whose sole purpose is to reliably kill with precision and what they could do in a split second to my sweet, beautiful daughter. A knife can cut kindling for a fire, prepare a meal for a family, and any number of other tasks, including killing a person. The list for guns is far shorter. You’re defending a tool whose purpose, whose sole design is for murder.
You did not even try to refute any of my points on the convenience factor of firearms being problematic in their ability to massively magnify the ability of someone to kill random strangers.
Perhaps you should start with the President of the United States who openly advocates violence as long as it on his behalf.
The math is simple. The more guns there are, the more people will use them to solve whatever problem they think they have with somebody else.
Knives and cars and explosives are designed for use in many ways, but none were specifically designed only to destroy. Guns are. And we have managed to make a sacred artifact out of something that was designed wholly for that purpose.
Are you honestly suggesting that Charlie Kirk engaged in violent rhetoric? What do you even mean by that? That he incited violence? Such a disgusting comment. No one deserves to die in such a brutal manner just because you don't agree with him. There is a clear line between incitement and speaking the truth.
He’s directly quoting Charlie Kirk, dude. One must assume Mr. Kirk would have to have agreed that his own death would be worth his precious right to own guns, right? Otherwise he’s a hypocrite.
honed intuition. Not insults, or if they have that secondary effect on you, it's a mild enough price to pay, unlike the shit you ghoulishly justify with that creepy passive aggressive tone.
You could say the same thing to anyone who opposes mass surveillance. After all, murders would likely go down with an AI-enabled camera on every street corner. Just imagine how many could be saved with a China-style surveillance state.
The vast majority of murders in this country are not done by serial killers or snipers or mass murderers, but by all varieties of Americans who come to think that shooting someone else will solve whatever problem they think they have. If, on the other hand, you want a state which surveils your every moment, and then uses that surveillance for control as well as identification, then I’d suggest you move to China immediately.
To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.
Kirk’s point about the Second Amendment was not a wish for bloodshed but an acknowledgment of the tragic cost that comes with any freedom. We say the same about free speech — it protects vile words as well as noble ones. His argument was about liberty, not murder.
“As you sow, so shall you reap” does not mean “you deserve to be killed.”
It means the moral order holds us accountable for our actions.
To wield Scripture as a sneer against the murdered is to corrupt its meaning and put yourself in peril of the very judgment you invoke.
Charlie Kirk did not ‘reap’ death by being outspoken. He reaped admiration, loyalty, and, yes, hatred. But the bullet that killed him was not sown by his words — it was sown by the killer’s malice.
Do not confuse the victim with the crime.
Mocking Charlie Kirk’s murder is not argument, it is desecration. His words about liberty acknowledged tragic costs — they did not invite his own execution. The only one who ‘reaps’ here is the killer, and the harvest is bloodguilt.
What is this freedom to bear arms nonsense? No European country has this weird obsession with gun ownership and they also dont have regular gun deaths. Kirk thought a few deaths were worth it for this supposed freedom, but I can't even begin to understand it.
Kenneth, the people of the UK gave up their gun rights years ago, and now the UK government is putting people in prison for saying things the government doesn't like.
I think that makes the connection between the right to arm and the right to speak against your government pretty clear, and it's one very obvious reason the US has a second amendment.
Not sure I follow your logic. I certainly don't approve of putting people in prison for saying something I don't agree with (though direct incitement to violence, which was the case for Lucy Connolly, is an exception in both the UK and the US), but to say that the 2nd amendment is the only defence of that freedom is bonkers and, frankly, dangerous. The current administration is severely clamping down on freedom of speech and yet I don't see armed mobs demanding the removal of people like Trump, Vance and Kennedy. Nor should they.
A lot of words to try to wriggle around what the man said. He condoned a certain level of gun violence in support of the Second Amendment. To point that out is not to celebrate anything. Yet, as I noted, the irony is inescapable.
I completely understand Kirk's position and logic. If your government wants to take away speech rights, using force to secure those rights is entirely logical.
I suspectbProgressives have an entirely different viewpoint and would be thrilled were the government to silence their political opponents.
If we cannot secure those rights at the ballot box, but instead seek to turn to violence, what do you think will happen? That is a step from which no. democracy can return.
No, you are not “pointing something out.” You are framing a man’s murder as “ironic.” That is mockery. That is desecration. Own it.
Kirk never “condoned” violence. He acknowledged, as any serious adult must, that freedom carries risks. We tolerate vile speech because we cherish free speech. We tolerate reckless drivers because we value the car. To state a tragic cost is not to wish it upon yourself.
The irony here is not that Charlie Kirk was shot. The irony is that you, claiming to critique violence, use a man’s blood to score points. That is the moral violence on display in your words.
Irony is not found in a man’s murder. Irony is found in those who, decrying violence, still smirk over the body. Kirk didn’t condone gun deaths — he acknowledged the risks that come with liberty. The only one who condoned violence was his killer.
The man said that some guns deaths are acceptable in support of the Second Amendment. How many? One, ten, a thousand? Any way you cut it, the man was espousing some level of violent death by gun. Wriggle around it as you will, the statement was callous at best.
Despite all your accusations, I don’t condone gun violence of any kind. But neither will I excuse those who do.
He agreed with the second amendment. He espoused that right to own a firearm but he never was in favor of violence. And he always preached and practiced civil discourse and diologue. You twist words or add your own twisted logic. You show yourself as the problem, certainly not the solution! By your twisted logic and words of "As you sow, so shall you reap"; then all people who drink alcohol, are over weight or take drugs should all die by cirrhosis, heart attacks or over doses. Sad!
U realize, UK citizens are serving prison sentences for Facebook posts. A comedian was recently arrested at Heathrow while returning from the US, for hours told on stage in the US.
I think we can agree that political violence is abhorrent while still recognizing that Charlie Kirk engaged in politically violent rhetoric. Normally I would save this for another time, but it really does feel like we are crossing the Rubicon of sorts. Kirk's rhetorical style was frequently violent and apocalyptic - claiming that Democrats "stand for everything God hates" or his support of Christian Dominionism. This type of rhetoric, while not overtly violent, intersects with actual political violence and ideology. So it gets somewhat blurry how culpable he was in creating the climate we are in today, but I would definitely say he was a major influence. I wish that society could reflect on this and reduce the dangerous rhetoric, but it's obvious that it's only being amplified.
How does this intersect with actual violence? Can you give an example, because it sounds like one of those sweeping statements that has no basis in fact. Claiming that Democrats "stand for everything God hates" is not violent AT ALL, you can disagree with it, but there is nothing violent in that statement overt or otherwise. He is not calling anyone to do anything. By politically violent, do you mean statement that you disagree with? I saw him talk about the positive attributes of Christianity, is that what you consider Christian Dominionism... I don't think it's blurry at all. You shouldn't be murdered in cold blood for speaking your mind.
Well I think an obvious example is January 6th, and rioters who expressed an intent to restore a theocracy within the US. He also supported Gays being stoned to death ("God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters") and immigrants getting shot at the border ("at what point do we use real force"). These cross the line from implicit to explicit calls to violence in my mind.
I consider Christian Dominionism as exactly what Kirk advocated for - violent theocratic authoritarianism. He never left much to interpretation, he was always explicit in his beliefs. Listen to some of his speeches and tell me how you interpret them.
You can wax lyrical about the motivations of those rioters on Jan 6th but that was not Charlie Kirk, he categorically did not support gays being stoned to death, you are taking things he said out of context. Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmcqjP8mhk
I have listened to many of the videos and Charlie Kirk explicitly condemned violence as a means of doing anything. I'm not sure you have watched any of the videos in full and worry that you are just watching the blue sky edits of some nutter who was determined to misquote him. The thing that set him apart was the incredible respect he treated those with whom he debated. You still haven't given me a definition as to what Christian Dominionism is but it appears it refers to a Christian with whom you disagree
When he quotes Leviticus, the specific part referring to being stoned to death, what context are you referring to? He didn't need to emphasize the most punitive part of the scripture to get his point across - unless he was was being apophatic, which I suspect he was. Ms Rachel supports religious inclusivity, Kirk supports religious exclusivity. Exclusion leads to othering, othering leads to dehumanization, and so it goes.
As for the definition of Christian Dominionism, I define it as the belief that society should be governed according to biblical principles. That biblical laws should be written and people forced to live under them. Kirk is quoted at CPAC saying that "Finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence;" a direct reference to Dominionism.
I find it strange that you dismiss my reference to Jan 6 being motivated by Christian Dominionism as "waxing lyrical." I am not just making this stuff up, there were literal signs with Dominionist slogans. I am sure not every rioter was a Dominionist, but let's not be intentionally obtuse over the role of Christian Nationalism in modern conservatism and the culture wars being fought. Culture wars that Kirk was at the forefront of.
Ultimately, I can accept that you don't see Kirk the way I did or how implicitly violent (if not often explicitly violent) his language was. I can have sympathy for the man and his poor family, and I can abhor what political violence does to all of us - but I won't rehabilitate his public persona, which is what I am discussing here. It helps to step back and really think about what is going on here. Kirk was useful to the regime in that he was a populist and radical (in that he was illiberal). Now in death he is being exploited to label half the country as a danger to this nation. Don't you think that's a problem?
Just as a data point - after the embers cool a bit on this specifically, I'll be on the lookout for a fair article or two that tries to deal with this question. It's not a theatre-oid of the culture war I know enough about yet to know if I agree with you or not.
To equate fiery rhetoric with murder is itself a dangerous confusion. Words may sting, offend, or provoke argument — but they are not gunfire. Political speech, even harsh speech, belongs to democracy. Murder does not.
Saying that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” is strong language, yes — but it is moral judgment, not a call to arms. Christian preachers have spoken that way for centuries. If you call that “political violence,” then the prophets and apostles stand guilty too.
Your logic implies that Kirk helped “create the climate” that killed him. That is perilously close to blaming the victim — the oldest alibi of the persecutor. The only climate that produced his death was hatred, and the only one culpable is the killer.
Charlie Kirk did not die for “apocalyptic rhetoric.” He died because he stood in public, unarmed, and refused to be silent. That is courage. And to blur the distinction between rhetoric and murder is not reflection. It is excuse.
I am not equating the two or justifying his assassination. You are correct that Christian preachers have spoken in similar ways, and their rhetoric has also inspired violence. Trump made a point to mention Scalise, Thompson, Kirk, and himself as examples of leftist violence - but he intentionally left out violence committed against Hortman and Pelosi. That was intentional. Can you help me identify contemporary leftist versions of the oath keepers, three percenters, or patriot front?
I am not trying to dotted line anything Charlie said to his assassination. Like you said, just because his language is morally repugnant doesn't mean he should be murdered. But he was part of a movement that has sought to divide people and inspire hatred towards people like myself - he contributed to an environment where people choose violence instead of words. He has explicitly supported the use of violence instead of words. Like I said before, I can find his murder abhorrent while still recognizing his contribution to the culture of hate and division that we have today.
I was simply stating that Kirk used violent rhetoric. It's all on record, anyone can listen. When you call on certain people to be shot like he has - that's violent rhetoric.
Using violent rhetoric probably does make you a target of violence, but that's not a very meaningful metric in my eyes. At the end of the day, there exists a clear line between violent rhetoric and violence. The victims at Charlie Hebdo brought violence upon themselves by "inflicting violence" upon the believers of a religion. Were they wrong to do so? Were their deaths karmic?
We are talking about persistent personal attacks on a specific person as a fascist threat. This murder is the physical extension of that specific rhetoric levied at Kirkz
I hope you can see the difference. Charlie Hebdo were mere satirists, but some pious followers of the Religion of Peace got “offended” and killed them.
I don't follow online discussion closely enough to know how how Mr. Kirk was spoken of by his opponents. I also don't know what sort of rhetoric he used, although it's also irrelevant to me. He could've been saying the most vile things 24/7 and I would still be horrified by his murder.
The whole, words are violence thing is just a technique to silence people who's opinions you don't like.
If you don't support free speech, you don't support democracy either. There are plenty of people in thr left who would be quite happy to have an authoritarian government go they could silence or punish any who dare disagree with their politics. That's an impulse mostly absent from the right.
Charles Kirk at an event in SLC UT 2023: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth 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. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
By the man's own logic there is nothing to see here. In honor of that we should probably just move on.
Such a morally simplistic, silly point. You can agree that a law should stay in place, acknowledge that there are trade offs and find the law on balance fair. That doesn't mean you agree that anyone should be able to take a gun and shoot them in cold blood for expressing their right to free speech in a respectful way. It's like acknowledging that cars can travel at certain speed on freeways, acknowledging that the trade off is that there will be traffic accidents, resulting in fatalities. It doesn't then mean that anyone has a right to drive their car at 100 miles through a crowded shopping mall. It certainly doesn't mean that logically there is "nothing to see hear". There is a particular vein of cruelty and callousness that can say that about someone who has just been murdered in public, leaving behind a widow and fatherless children...
But we're not talking about it because he was killed by a gun. We're talking about it because he was killed during a public political event. This would be just as big a story had he been stabbed to death during it. On the other hand, had he been mugged and killed while walking home at night with groceries, it would hardly have been a story at all. The only reason it might become more than a one-off report in that scenario is because Trump is currently playing up crime.
Isn't it being talked about because of who was killed? Wouldn't his murder have been talked about however it happened?
I would note that it looks like some 70+% of realized political assassinations post WW2 were by firearm (various sources cluster around that number). The remaining balance were almost all by explosives. You can't separate guns from political killings. They track closer than even guns and intimate partner homicides
It would have, but not to this extent. Imagine instead that one day he was hanging out with friends and was tragically killed when one of them mishandled a gun. He'd surely get an article due to his prominence, but that'd be it. At most, perhaps some left-wing outfits would write an article pushing for gun restrictions or improved gun safety. Instead, we're seeing bipartisan concern about the greater implications of his killing. We're seeing this very post from Yascha. The gun isn't the story, it's the assassination itself. Same as it would've been had he been stabbed or blown up. That being said, your point about political assassinations in the US being conducted with guns 2/3 times is a fair one. Non-gun assassinations can happen (see the UK) and gun assassinations can occur in countries with strict restrictions (see Japan), but access to guns must make it easier for would-be-killers.
BIG balz was mugged while walking home at night. And that provoked Trump enough to send the military into Washington DC. EVERYTHING is now a story. STORY TRUMPS FACT.
Indeed, hence why I included that final line. Usually, a high-profile person being killed in a mugging wouldn't be a major multi-day story national, but these aren't normal times.
No, Kirk was a very major conservative spokesman, murdered at a political rally. He had millions of followers. This is not merely being gunned up by Trump. This is shades of 1968.
I agree, I'm not saying it is being ginned up. I'm saying that, in an alternate world where he were killed in a mugging-gone-wrong, it wouldn't have been a truly major story. I was using that as a contrast to reality. My point is that this is notable not for the weapon he was killed with, but where and when he was killed in the context of who he was.
This is out and away the best commentary on yesterday's atrocity that I have read. Free speech means nothing unless it means that each person can freely express his views on matters of public importance, even if others are deeply offended by them.
If others find a speaker's views to be ill-conceived, cynical, denigrating, or malevolent, their remedy is to explain why and to convince others of their own preferred views.
Punishing or harming a speaker for his views is always a direct affront to our right of free speech, which for good reason is enshrined in the very first article of our Bill of Rights. Societies that repress free speech tend to founder over time, and those that respect it tend to flourish. That is not a coincidence. Free speech not only allows us, but obliges us to reconsider our views and to have them tested by the reason, logic, and experience of others.
Yesterday was a very sorry and horrifying day for the country. Full stop.
Indeed, some Democrats already seem to have fallen into that trap, objecting to a Republican motion for the House of Representatives to observe a moment of silence in Kirk’s honor.
Actually, after 30 seconds of silence Bobert called for a spoken prayer to follow it. Dems objected to that.
CORRECTION to your post please: The Democrats did not object to the moment of silence. The entire chamber was silent for this time, ended when Johnson gavelled back to normal business. Republican Lauren Boebert, claiming that silent prayer is ineffective, asked for a spoken prayer. At this point, Democrats objected as it is generally unprecedented in these contexts. A shouting match followed, including Republicans accusing the Democrats for bearing responsibility of Kirk’s murder.
Was Charlie Kirk the collateral damage of "gun deaths" as he described in April 2023, or was he the victim of "gun violence" as the progressives proclaim. Gun deaths and Gun violence are euphemisms used by segments of a society that are engaged in an alternate reality of blamelessness. It's not my fault, I've been framed. Or, the other guy did it. Our society will collapse and implode unless it ascends beyond this blameless moral relativism.
I agree. Both extremes are comprised of the indoctrinated and have completely abandoned rationality. Each operates with a kernel of truth, but morphs and spins that into something that can deliver political power. This is not about solving problems or addressing issues. It is about an alternate reality seeking raw political power.
Note, though: it does not seem that a moment of silence was ignored. The chamber did that, but then Boebert demanded a *spoken* prayer, which led to the disruption.
I got into pointless arguments online after Brian Thompson was murdered and so many were quick to celebrate because they viewed it as just. Just making the basic argument, “we don’t settle policy differences with violence in this society, and if that became routine, it wouldn’t be a society any of us would want to live in.” But so many pushed back and argued that, essentially, it’s ok to kill as long as you feel strongly enough about something, and it doesn’t hurt if you’re also photogenic like Saint Luigi (this argument could defend abortion clinic shootings as well, but it’s gauche to notice that). This is where that leads. Is this what anyone wants?
No, I hate guns man 😕
The moderate left pays way too much attention to the extreme right, and the moderate right pays way too much attention to the extreme left. If moderate Americans of either stripe don't wise up to this dynamic, and how it distorts our perception of where our society's dangers lie, we will cede our political system to destructive extremists. We could lose it all.
Kind of hard to buy this when it was the moderate/mainstream right that have stood behind the January 6 coup attempt and still can't safely say out loud that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Charlie Kirk himself was "moderate" right and supported raising monry to bail out the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband. The "moderate left" mostly pays attention to the actual leaders and highly influential insiders of the Republican Party who run the country, and it's a worrying picture.
It's simply not true that the moderate right stood behind the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Such an assertion is itself inflammatory.
J6 was too little, too late. And Biden did steal the 2020 election. Explain the 15+ million votes that appeared for him, that didn't exist during any other election, or the actions of the many Leftist poll workers to hide their actions.
Your nonsense shows that we aren't on the same team any more. Debating who is at fault is no longer relevant, it is Us versus Them.
Explain where Biden's "extra votes" came from? I assume you're talking about the 16 million over what Hillary got? And you think that means he stole them? Are you serious?
Donald Trump himself got 12 million more votes than he did in 2016. I guess that means he stole them too?
We had 330 million people in this country in 2020. Probably around 250 million of voting age. And 155 million of them voted for Biden and Trump combined. That still leaves almost 100 million who didn't vote.
There's your explanation for where Biden's 16 million extra votes came from. From the roughly 125 million people who didn't vote in 2016—almost half rhe electorate—28 million of them decided they didn't want to sit this one out because they either really hated or really liked Trump.
And the hate-to-like ratio was about 4:3.
This isn't rocket science. It's simple math, and you could have easily figured this out if you'd just checked the numbers.
But you read some little snippet somewhere posted by some conspiracy theorist and abandoned your critical thinking capacity, because you apparently wanted a reason to hate your fellow Americans.
We can't survive when people like you aren't even trying.
You don't understand the argument. Total votes for both parties is usually roughly the same, some in the middle go back and forth. Super popular people like Obama increased the total by a bit, but not nearly as much as Biden did. Biden couldn't fill a small town high school auditorium for his "rallies" yet somehow hordes of people decide to vote in 2020. If they hated Trump so much, where were they in 2024?
You completely ignore all the video evidence of Leftist poll workers breaking laws to create votes out of thin air.
We aren't the same people, the same nation. We just happen to share a citizenship created by paperwork. The sooner we all split up, or you all disappear in smoke, the better.
Where did all those Trump hating voters go in 2024? Well I'll tell you one thing—you don't see me suggesting that Republicans must have stolen the election because of it.
Before I get to the main point, I'll invite you to share any supposed accounts of Democratic poll worker misconduct you think didn't end up getting debunked, because there were lots of them and they all turned out to be nonsense.
The video of poll workers closing the shutters on supposed Trump poll monitors? They already had monitors inside; those were extra Trump supporters who showed up to harrass the workers.
The supposed thumb drive passed between Georgia poll workers? A stick of gum. Rudy Giuliani got his ass sued off for making two innocent poll workers' lives such a living hell they had to move away from their home. And now he's broke and miserable, disbarred in the state of New York for his overall unethical conduct and dishonest representation of Trump.
Oh, then there was the guy who was so convinced he'd spotted a truck with fake ballots that he chased it down and forced it open to find it filled with refrigerator parts. Oops!
There was the Antrim Michigan crowd who were investigated by a Republican state congressman, who found that their claims were so fraudulent and lacking merit he recommended them for prosecution to the state AG. A god-fearing, Trump supporting politician who then had to endure the scorn and abuse of his neighbors and former friends.
That's just a sampler of the mass hysteria drummed up by unscrupulous parties after the election, most notably Trump himself.
Now, as to the election numbers, you're making a mistake by crediting the 2008 turnout bump to Obama. At the time, it was a record bump—about 17 million if I recall correctly.
That was an anti-Republican bump. The Bush backlash that began in 2006 when Democrats swept into power in the House. Not only did Obama win but Republicans were crushed up and down the ballot.
Studies have clearly shown that negative partisanship fuels voters more than anything. That's why the party in power tends to get slammed in the midterms—even the mighty Democratic unified government from the 2008 election fell hard in 2010.
That's your answer to why Trump got more votes in 2024. Americans have short attention spans and poor memories, and largely don't understand the issues they vote on. They bought in to the Republican bullshit that inflation was Biden's fault (it was a worldwide phenomenon) and stupidly thought that putting Trump back in office would restore the economy of 2019, failing to see through the utter incoherence of his economic proposals.
And a bunch of *exceptionally* dumb pro-Palestinian American activists convinced themselves that Trump would end the war in Gaza, by doing something other than telling Netanyahu to hurry up with getting the Palestinians out so he can build a resort. Furthermore, a bunch of young Zoomer males who were in middle school during Trump's first term and didn't know any better got taken in by the Manosphere, and even certain well meaning but ignorant influencers. Who are now starting to realize how duped and used they were by a con-man with no moral fiber and a party establishment too scared to stand up to him.
Meanwhile, the legitimate media were utterly perplexed as to how to cover a Presidential candidate who by any reasonable measure was a dangerous threat to the country, while still maintaining some semblance of neutrality, while right-wing media continued to be their shamelessly dishonest, propagandizing selves.
Look dude, we aren't going up in smoke and neither are you. America has never been "one people"—at many points in our history we were at each other's throats, but it really did seem to be settling down toward the end of the Cold War. But it was something of an illusion, as the American right found it way too easy to reclaim power in Congress with demagoguery and stoking of social and cultural grievance.
I don't want to get into a history lesson or a back and forth about who started this or that. Let's just say the biggest factor in our modern era of polarization has been the Internet and social media. It was largely responsible for both the rise of Trump and the leftist hysteria of the late teens through 2021. And now everyone hates each other.
Are you really OK with that? I don't know who you are or where you're from, but I'm willing to bet that policy wise we'd agree on more than you'd think. I don't hate you, but I can tell you there are people who very badly want and need us to hate each other so that they can remain in power. You've got to realize that you're being manipulated by those people. I'm sorry to lecture you like this, but it's the truth.
I know that I swim in a similar pool of vitriol and outrage, much of it justifiable in my opinion. But I haven't submitted to conspiracy theories about a fake Trump assassination attempt or a stolen 2024 election. That's what matters. Opinion is meaningless if we can't agree on basic reality. You've got to let go of the garbage you collect from online junk peddlers who want us at each other's throats, or this idea of us needing a national divorce becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yet you are still wrong.
Biden's message in the 2020 election was that covid was dangerous and you should stay home. Trump's was that it wasn't that bad and you should be fine coming out.
Failure to correct for this very obvious thing in an analysis has 2 explanations, neither of them good.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Trump did downplay the threat of covid, which turned out to be correct. He also pushed for vaccines (operation warp speed) and common-sense precautions like limiting travel from China.
I highly doubt many people switched their vote over covid, one way or the other.
Yes and what are you helmet boys doing for me LATELY as a certified white man..?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE
What are you babbling about, boomer?
So very, very well said. The USA is a "middle of the road" country. 70% or more of us are "moderate" in our thinking... close to the middle even if on one side or the other. The extremes of the left and right are destroying our nation. In their minds it's "all or nothing". It's up to the 60 to 70% of us to stop cow-towing to the extremeists. It's time for the media to stop kneeling to them for the sake of clicks and views.
Thank you Yascha.
Indeed people in this country should not be murdered for political speech - or for going to the grocery store or school or church. Gun violence in this country in a singular sickness and one I hope we can find the humanity to confront. Mr. Kirk said he believed that deaths “every single year” from gun violence were the price we have to pay to have the second amendment to protect our “God-given rights.” I deeply disagreed with him on this and virtually everything he ever said. But there is nothing okay about the ease with which people can obtain and shoot guns at people for any number of indefensible reasons including to silence the speech of someone with whom you disagree. I will pray for his wife and young children as I do for all victims of gun violence in this country.
No matter how you feel about the relationship of this country with guns, it is too late to do anything about it. There are probably close to 500 million guns in civilian hands and are easy to build from scratch. I guess we will soon find out if Charlie’s thesis is correct. Will we stop and walk back from the abyss? I think so. Political violence doesn’t lead to civil war unless political leaders believe they can impose their will through force. This is a delusional position given the availability of arms in this country. I think the most likely scenario is the political violence in the U.S. and Western Europe in the 60s or at worst the Irish troubles.
Agree 100%. Just one correction: the Dems in Congress did not object to the moment of silence, they objected to Representative Boebart's request for a spoken prayer after the moment of silence they all observed.
A good essay, but it falls on deaf years. Just read the comments here. We have entered a dark period and both sides have brought us here (and to answer one of the comments below, in this case and most recently, the violence definitely comes from the Left, but the Right did its part prior to that). Of course, right now, one would hope that all those great minds on the Left would stop pretending that this violence doesn't exist. Maybe if the media tried to go back to a non-partisan perspective, there would no longer be an "us" versus "them."
I might not always share your opinion, but I will fight tooth and nail for your right to free speech. Because freedom doesn’t mean agreement—it means the courage to let truth and lies wrestle in the open without a censor’s blade deciding for us.
We will not be silenced. Not by algorithms, not by governments, not by mobs demanding conformity. A voice once surrendered is a freedom lost forever. And every time one of us speaks, even when it rattles the crowd, it keeps the fire alive for all of us.
Charlie Kirk didn’t storm buildings, loot stores, or burn cities—he just talked. And that’s what terrified them.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/gun-charlie-kirk-shot-with-revealed/
Did some hosts on CNN or MSNBC do that?
“it’s worth [the] cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Charlie Kirk
As you sow, so shall you reap.
I’d further note that for the first time in our history, we have a president of the United States who has frequently and openly espoused violence in support of his agenda, who incited violence on his behalf and who then pardoned the violent because they had been violent on his behalf.
I do not in any way condone what happened to Charlie Kirk, or to anyone else along any part of our political spectrum, but when violence is espoused from the top, no one is safe.
Another "I don't condone, but..." apologist, I see. The 'but' indicates exactly the opposite of the claim that you say you don't condone. Your speech indicates otherwise.
You don’t read very carefully do you.
Actually, I do. Perhaps you could consider my point a little more seriously.
Actually you don’t. Being against violence has nothing to do with suggesting that its espousal by the President of United States doesn’t help and may indeed hinder efforts to end it.
The term 'but is used here as "used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned." That's the dictionary definition. Note the importance of 'contrasting'. I point out how that usage 'contrasts' your claim to not condone and, of course, you think some fault lies with me. May I suggest that you make the very effort you want others to make yourself. Condemn the action and the motivation behind it. Don't mitigate this condemnation by suggesting some portion of blame belongs somewhere else.
And if some portion of the blame for the violence does indeed belong somewhere else? What then?
So what do you think Mr. Kirk meant? Having the Second Amendment is worth a couple of gun deaths a year - as long as one of them isn’t mine.
He likely meant accidental killings due to ignorance about gun safety. This was not accidental, it was murder. And, it's likely that being called out on the spot and not having time to think his response through, he committed the sin of broadbrushing.
And, even if he did mean to include murder in that statement, you gloating over his death just shows how immature you are. You don't want the best for this country. You just want to be right. You want your "gotcha" moment. The man had a right to his opinion and didn't deserve to die for it.
We are all Americans, a nation of people with a variety of opinions. Learning to agree to disagree peacefully is one of the things that holds us together. If you and others like you continue to justify political violence, we are going to lose everything that is good about this country. I served in the military to protect our core values from foreign aggression. But, I can't protect the country from people like you who root for its demise.
I hope you grow up, acquire some wisdom, and learn to exercise some humility. It would benefit not only you, but the country as well. Be well.
“He likely meant”. He could as easily have meant just what I suggested he meant.
In any case suggesting that a man who advocated for a country flooded with guns may not have understand the irony of his death by gun violence is not ‘gloating’.
I never either advocated or justified political violence. Do not project your biases on me.
I too served in the military, back when over 50,000 of my brothers-in-arms died in a hot wet hell neither we nor most of our country ever truly understood, prolonged by the misinformation and lies of a government who, even if begun with the best intentions sold us down the river. So I don’t need any lectures about militarily defending our core values. We haven’t truly done that since 1945. Rather we’ve wasted tens of thousands of young American lives in three different distant wars we didn’t really understand and in which we never should have involved ourselves..
I am not rooting for our nation’s demise. I’ve taught our history for over 40 years, I know what we are supposed to stand for, and I know when and where we’ve done so and when and where we have not.
I also know that the current President of the United States is attempting to bring about our demise as a Republic, and he’s only too happy to promote violence in pursuit of that end.
If you can factually dispute anything I’ve said her, either in my own words or in my statement of facts, please do so.
You belie your position with your own inflammatory rhetoric. “A country flooded with guns…” Perhaps he believed, as I do, that goverment should not be the sole possessor of force of arms; that citizens have a right to arm themselves against tyranny; that no human system being perfect, some casualties are an acceptable loss to preserve gun rights.
Certainly we believe that some casualties caused by vaccines are worth the benefits of vaccinating the whole herd. There is nuance here that you are not granting.
And I think you are enjoying this irony just a bit too much. Many people say many things that may not be so well thought out but that doesn’t mean they deserve death. Your sanctimony in pointing out the irony of his statement and the nature of his death leads me to believe that you do actually believe that Mr. Kirk deserved death. Regardless of whether you are advocating for it or not, you are deriving satisfaction from it. And that is abhorrent enough.
And I agree with you that the conflicts we have engaged in since WWII were wasteful and likely unnecessary. But, it’s easy to exercise hindsight after the fact. I’ve studied that era and people were terrified of Communism, for good reason. In spite of this, had I been old enough, I would have marched against that war, just like I marched against the Iraq War. I used to belong to Veterans for Peace because I don’t believe in squandering American lives or treasure on rich men’s games/fears.
I’m not going to argue with you on Trump. I have my opinion and you have yours and we can agree to disagree, peaceably, and uphold the brilliance of the Constitution by NOT killing each other. I did not agree with Mr. Kirk on many issues, but his death is horrific to me and indicates that we as a nation have become a people who are willing to leverage violence to chill speech and coerce ideological frameworks. This is as anathema to me as it should be to you, who also took the oath.
Thank you for your service, whether given under duress or not. You did your duty and for that, you have my respect. Be well.
I’m not sure how describing a nation in which there are 1.2 guns per person as 'a country flooded with guns' seems inflammatory to you. It seems entirely factual to me. And the math is equally compelling. The more guns t there are, and the easier it is for anyone to get ahold of one, the more likely it is that they will be used by anyone who thinks them a way to solve whatever issue they think needs solving. Whatever the actual motive of the Utah shooter turns out to be, we can be sure he felt a gun was the way to solve whatever issue he had with Kirk. It ought to be clear that this is a far cry from anything the Founders had in mind.
As to Mr. Kirk’s death, I remind you again that irony is not advocacy. That is a nuance you seem to ignore.
"Certainly we believe that some casualties caused by vaccines are worth the benefits of vaccinating the whole herd. There is nuance here that you are not granting.”
That seems an entirely false analogy to me. The Founders lived in a time and place in which the kinds of weapons available were so different in quality and capacity than today’s as to constitute a wholly different level of lethality. Further, like so many supporters of gun rights, you seem to ignore the clear limiting caveat implicit in the opening clause of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the idea that a bunch of gun toting individuals protesting tyranny in today’s mechanized and technically advanced society would result in anything but slaughter or at a long stretch anarchy is a fantasy. Ballots not bullets is at the heart of our Republic. If the ballot fails, bullets will not resolve the issue.
The fact that you refuse to engage on the subject of Donald Trump strongly suggests that you are to some extent in agreement with his all-out assault on our Republic, which belies your earlier assertion that it is the demise of that republic that I am seeking.
Try to explain it away as you will, but tying yourself in knots to do so isn’t going to ride.
And again.
One of liberal democracy’s great gifts is the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of violence. But we are rapidly losing it. Yascha, this piece is tremendous and couldn’t have come at a more crucial moment! RIP Charlie Kirk (1993-2025) 🕯️May his memory be a blessing! I’m shaken by this tragedy. That this could happen in the United States of America isn’t surprising but is still nonetheless so, so tragic. We’ve got to reunify this country!
Violent rhetoric invites violence. It's karmic.
That violence was coming from the Left, not from Charile Kirk. Designate someone a "fascist threat to the Repubic" and someone's likely to take a shot at him.
Designating someone who is a fascist threat the to Republic as fascist threat to the Republic isn’t the problem.
I’m not suggesting that Charile Kirk was such, but as I noted below, his own words concerning the Second Amendment do seem to have come back to haunt him and his family. Nor does it help that the President of the United States has openly espoused violence as long as it is done on his behalf.
After all, political violence is a deep part of our DNA. We were born in violence, and we’ve been plagued by regular episodes of it ever since. But when our president espouses it, we have come to a whole new level.
As has been said many times, guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are thousands of gun laws on the books and none of them have stopped illegal guns, or shooters who steal, lie or use other methods to obtain the guns they use. If they couldn't get a gun they would use a knife, bomb, or car. The killer on the train in Charlotte didn't have a gun. Gun control advocates never acknowledge the many times legal guns are used by citizens to protect themselves and others. Everyone must stop glorifying and excusing violence, and swiftly punish violent people, then maybe we will have less violence.
I’m sorry, but that’s asinine. You are right in a perfectly literal sense that a gun lacks the ability to make any kind of decision an thus cannot choose to kill anyone. But to argue that is to argue in bad faith and I think you know it. A gun makes it easier by an order of magnitude to kill someone, especially at a distance. You could kill someone up close with a knife or a gun, but good luck at 50’ with that knife. And that, of course is the point. That’s why we don’t throw spears in wars anymore. Distance and killing power in one package. You can’t just reload your spear, right? You could argue bows are similar to a gun and in a sense you would be right, but the convenience favor of a firearm is leagues better than that of a bow and arrow. Can’t exactly put a short bow in a holster for concealed carry now, can we, Deborah?
The right to murder at a distance is not a right I think worth having in civilized society. You should be ashamed of yourself for providing cover for those who would murder children in schools, just like Charlie Kirk. And that is monstrous.
Shame on you.
You know nothing about responsible gun culture, quite clearly. Responsible gun owners take very seriously the power of weapons and the absolute requirement to own them safely and use them properly, for protection and not for destruction. You don't hear about all the times that legal guns, properly used, have protected innocent people from becoming victims, because that is not the "narrative" the media wants to tell. People have attempted to do surveys to find out how many tragedies were averted by safe gun use, but the liberals who run our institutions don't want to know and bury the results of the surveys, plus canceling the people who do the surveys. So go outside the media narrative, learn about real gun culture, and don't shame me for being part of a reality you don't understand.
I grew up in a small town; I understand American gun culture just fine, thank you very much. I’ve also lived abroad in two foreign countries for years with restrictive laws on weapons, and missed none of it at all. I currently live in the United States.
Let me be clear: “responsible gun owners” are generally not the problem. The massive amount of guns circulating through the country is a problem because they get into the hands of irresponsible gun owners. Put another way, if we make nuclear weaponry legal to own with say, a background check and waiting period, don’t really care how responsible most nuke owners would be, since it only takes one of them to destroy everyone I care about.
I don’t care for the haughty, superior attitude you’re taking here. This isn’t theoretical, or an issue of principle for me. I’m talking about the threat from tools whose sole purpose is to reliably kill with precision and what they could do in a split second to my sweet, beautiful daughter. A knife can cut kindling for a fire, prepare a meal for a family, and any number of other tasks, including killing a person. The list for guns is far shorter. You’re defending a tool whose purpose, whose sole design is for murder.
You did not even try to refute any of my points on the convenience factor of firearms being problematic in their ability to massively magnify the ability of someone to kill random strangers.
Perhaps you should start with the President of the United States who openly advocates violence as long as it on his behalf.
The math is simple. The more guns there are, the more people will use them to solve whatever problem they think they have with somebody else.
Knives and cars and explosives are designed for use in many ways, but none were specifically designed only to destroy. Guns are. And we have managed to make a sacred artifact out of something that was designed wholly for that purpose.
Examples of Trump advocating violence?
Please. On what distant planet have you been living the past nine years.
It's Trump who is villianizing good people and dispatching masked thugs to terrorize them. Something must give. Charlie condoned this.
Are you honestly suggesting that Charlie Kirk engaged in violent rhetoric? What do you even mean by that? That he incited violence? Such a disgusting comment. No one deserves to die in such a brutal manner just because you don't agree with him. There is a clear line between incitement and speaking the truth.
“it’s worth [the] cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Charlie Kirk
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Psychopathic leftism, you’d fit in with lenin just fine. People should walk the fuck away from you.
He’s directly quoting Charlie Kirk, dude. One must assume Mr. Kirk would have to have agreed that his own death would be worth his precious right to own guns, right? Otherwise he’s a hypocrite.
As usual from the right, insults instead of facts. Trump would be proud of you.
honed intuition. Not insults, or if they have that secondary effect on you, it's a mild enough price to pay, unlike the shit you ghoulishly justify with that creepy passive aggressive tone.
Word salad, not reasoning.
Kirk supported shooting immigrants. Nothing settles moral relativism easier for me than overt calls for violence.
You could say the same thing to anyone who opposes mass surveillance. After all, murders would likely go down with an AI-enabled camera on every street corner. Just imagine how many could be saved with a China-style surveillance state.
Mass surveillance doesn’t kill people.
That's of little comfort to people killed by uncaught serial killers. As you sow, so shall you reap.
The vast majority of murders in this country are not done by serial killers or snipers or mass murderers, but by all varieties of Americans who come to think that shooting someone else will solve whatever problem they think they have. If, on the other hand, you want a state which surveils your every moment, and then uses that surveillance for control as well as identification, then I’d suggest you move to China immediately.
To seize on a man’s death as an occasion for mockery is not political speech, it is desecration. Whatever you think of Charlie Kirk’s stance, he was a human being murdered in cold blood. To celebrate it is to join hands with the murderer.
Kirk’s point about the Second Amendment was not a wish for bloodshed but an acknowledgment of the tragic cost that comes with any freedom. We say the same about free speech — it protects vile words as well as noble ones. His argument was about liberty, not murder.
“As you sow, so shall you reap” does not mean “you deserve to be killed.”
It means the moral order holds us accountable for our actions.
To wield Scripture as a sneer against the murdered is to corrupt its meaning and put yourself in peril of the very judgment you invoke.
Charlie Kirk did not ‘reap’ death by being outspoken. He reaped admiration, loyalty, and, yes, hatred. But the bullet that killed him was not sown by his words — it was sown by the killer’s malice.
Do not confuse the victim with the crime.
Mocking Charlie Kirk’s murder is not argument, it is desecration. His words about liberty acknowledged tragic costs — they did not invite his own execution. The only one who ‘reaps’ here is the killer, and the harvest is bloodguilt.
What is this freedom to bear arms nonsense? No European country has this weird obsession with gun ownership and they also dont have regular gun deaths. Kirk thought a few deaths were worth it for this supposed freedom, but I can't even begin to understand it.
Kenneth, the people of the UK gave up their gun rights years ago, and now the UK government is putting people in prison for saying things the government doesn't like.
I think that makes the connection between the right to arm and the right to speak against your government pretty clear, and it's one very obvious reason the US has a second amendment.
Not sure I follow your logic. I certainly don't approve of putting people in prison for saying something I don't agree with (though direct incitement to violence, which was the case for Lucy Connolly, is an exception in both the UK and the US), but to say that the 2nd amendment is the only defence of that freedom is bonkers and, frankly, dangerous. The current administration is severely clamping down on freedom of speech and yet I don't see armed mobs demanding the removal of people like Trump, Vance and Kennedy. Nor should they.
A lot of words to try to wriggle around what the man said. He condoned a certain level of gun violence in support of the Second Amendment. To point that out is not to celebrate anything. Yet, as I noted, the irony is inescapable.
I completely understand Kirk's position and logic. If your government wants to take away speech rights, using force to secure those rights is entirely logical.
I suspectbProgressives have an entirely different viewpoint and would be thrilled were the government to silence their political opponents.
If we cannot secure those rights at the ballot box, but instead seek to turn to violence, what do you think will happen? That is a step from which no. democracy can return.
No, you are not “pointing something out.” You are framing a man’s murder as “ironic.” That is mockery. That is desecration. Own it.
Kirk never “condoned” violence. He acknowledged, as any serious adult must, that freedom carries risks. We tolerate vile speech because we cherish free speech. We tolerate reckless drivers because we value the car. To state a tragic cost is not to wish it upon yourself.
The irony here is not that Charlie Kirk was shot. The irony is that you, claiming to critique violence, use a man’s blood to score points. That is the moral violence on display in your words.
Irony is not found in a man’s murder. Irony is found in those who, decrying violence, still smirk over the body. Kirk didn’t condone gun deaths — he acknowledged the risks that come with liberty. The only one who condoned violence was his killer.
And you, by calling it ‘irony.’
The man said that some guns deaths are acceptable in support of the Second Amendment. How many? One, ten, a thousand? Any way you cut it, the man was espousing some level of violent death by gun. Wriggle around it as you will, the statement was callous at best.
Despite all your accusations, I don’t condone gun violence of any kind. But neither will I excuse those who do.
Simply a horrific and asinine statement! He never condoned violence.
Then what shall we take from his statement? That gun deaths somehow aren’t violent?
He agreed with the second amendment. He espoused that right to own a firearm but he never was in favor of violence. And he always preached and practiced civil discourse and diologue. You twist words or add your own twisted logic. You show yourself as the problem, certainly not the solution! By your twisted logic and words of "As you sow, so shall you reap"; then all people who drink alcohol, are over weight or take drugs should all die by cirrhosis, heart attacks or over doses. Sad!
Try to wriggle around it as you will. The man’s own words contradict you.
Wow, and I thought this kind of callousness was reserved for schmucks on X
It was Mr. Kirk’s statement that was callous. I was merely pointing out the irony.
Without the second amendment, we wouldn't have a first amendment. Just ask the citizens of the UK who no longer have gun nor free speech rights.
Oh please. There are lots of places where free speech exists without gun rights - the UK being one of them.
U realize, UK citizens are serving prison sentences for Facebook posts. A comedian was recently arrested at Heathrow while returning from the US, for hours told on stage in the US.
Read up
Funny, that’s exactly what Donald Trump and his lackeys would love to do here.So are you suggesting he should be held to the Constitution at gunpoint?
Cite your sources. You’re just reciting bumper sticker-level platitudes otherwise. When specifically has that been the case?
I think we can agree that political violence is abhorrent while still recognizing that Charlie Kirk engaged in politically violent rhetoric. Normally I would save this for another time, but it really does feel like we are crossing the Rubicon of sorts. Kirk's rhetorical style was frequently violent and apocalyptic - claiming that Democrats "stand for everything God hates" or his support of Christian Dominionism. This type of rhetoric, while not overtly violent, intersects with actual political violence and ideology. So it gets somewhat blurry how culpable he was in creating the climate we are in today, but I would definitely say he was a major influence. I wish that society could reflect on this and reduce the dangerous rhetoric, but it's obvious that it's only being amplified.
How does this intersect with actual violence? Can you give an example, because it sounds like one of those sweeping statements that has no basis in fact. Claiming that Democrats "stand for everything God hates" is not violent AT ALL, you can disagree with it, but there is nothing violent in that statement overt or otherwise. He is not calling anyone to do anything. By politically violent, do you mean statement that you disagree with? I saw him talk about the positive attributes of Christianity, is that what you consider Christian Dominionism... I don't think it's blurry at all. You shouldn't be murdered in cold blood for speaking your mind.
Well I think an obvious example is January 6th, and rioters who expressed an intent to restore a theocracy within the US. He also supported Gays being stoned to death ("God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters") and immigrants getting shot at the border ("at what point do we use real force"). These cross the line from implicit to explicit calls to violence in my mind.
I consider Christian Dominionism as exactly what Kirk advocated for - violent theocratic authoritarianism. He never left much to interpretation, he was always explicit in his beliefs. Listen to some of his speeches and tell me how you interpret them.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-calls-shooting-and-whipping-migrants-southern-border-if-you-enter-we-have
You can wax lyrical about the motivations of those rioters on Jan 6th but that was not Charlie Kirk, he categorically did not support gays being stoned to death, you are taking things he said out of context. Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmcqjP8mhk
I have listened to many of the videos and Charlie Kirk explicitly condemned violence as a means of doing anything. I'm not sure you have watched any of the videos in full and worry that you are just watching the blue sky edits of some nutter who was determined to misquote him. The thing that set him apart was the incredible respect he treated those with whom he debated. You still haven't given me a definition as to what Christian Dominionism is but it appears it refers to a Christian with whom you disagree
When he quotes Leviticus, the specific part referring to being stoned to death, what context are you referring to? He didn't need to emphasize the most punitive part of the scripture to get his point across - unless he was was being apophatic, which I suspect he was. Ms Rachel supports religious inclusivity, Kirk supports religious exclusivity. Exclusion leads to othering, othering leads to dehumanization, and so it goes.
As for the definition of Christian Dominionism, I define it as the belief that society should be governed according to biblical principles. That biblical laws should be written and people forced to live under them. Kirk is quoted at CPAC saying that "Finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence;" a direct reference to Dominionism.
I find it strange that you dismiss my reference to Jan 6 being motivated by Christian Dominionism as "waxing lyrical." I am not just making this stuff up, there were literal signs with Dominionist slogans. I am sure not every rioter was a Dominionist, but let's not be intentionally obtuse over the role of Christian Nationalism in modern conservatism and the culture wars being fought. Culture wars that Kirk was at the forefront of.
Ultimately, I can accept that you don't see Kirk the way I did or how implicitly violent (if not often explicitly violent) his language was. I can have sympathy for the man and his poor family, and I can abhor what political violence does to all of us - but I won't rehabilitate his public persona, which is what I am discussing here. It helps to step back and really think about what is going on here. Kirk was useful to the regime in that he was a populist and radical (in that he was illiberal). Now in death he is being exploited to label half the country as a danger to this nation. Don't you think that's a problem?
Just as a data point - after the embers cool a bit on this specifically, I'll be on the lookout for a fair article or two that tries to deal with this question. It's not a theatre-oid of the culture war I know enough about yet to know if I agree with you or not.
To equate fiery rhetoric with murder is itself a dangerous confusion. Words may sting, offend, or provoke argument — but they are not gunfire. Political speech, even harsh speech, belongs to democracy. Murder does not.
Saying that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” is strong language, yes — but it is moral judgment, not a call to arms. Christian preachers have spoken that way for centuries. If you call that “political violence,” then the prophets and apostles stand guilty too.
Your logic implies that Kirk helped “create the climate” that killed him. That is perilously close to blaming the victim — the oldest alibi of the persecutor. The only climate that produced his death was hatred, and the only one culpable is the killer.
Charlie Kirk did not die for “apocalyptic rhetoric.” He died because he stood in public, unarmed, and refused to be silent. That is courage. And to blur the distinction between rhetoric and murder is not reflection. It is excuse.
I am not equating the two or justifying his assassination. You are correct that Christian preachers have spoken in similar ways, and their rhetoric has also inspired violence. Trump made a point to mention Scalise, Thompson, Kirk, and himself as examples of leftist violence - but he intentionally left out violence committed against Hortman and Pelosi. That was intentional. Can you help me identify contemporary leftist versions of the oath keepers, three percenters, or patriot front?
I am not trying to dotted line anything Charlie said to his assassination. Like you said, just because his language is morally repugnant doesn't mean he should be murdered. But he was part of a movement that has sought to divide people and inspire hatred towards people like myself - he contributed to an environment where people choose violence instead of words. He has explicitly supported the use of violence instead of words. Like I said before, I can find his murder abhorrent while still recognizing his contribution to the culture of hate and division that we have today.
You can't simply label thoughts or words you dislike as "political violence". Violence is what happened to Charlie yesterday
I was simply stating that Kirk used violent rhetoric. It's all on record, anyone can listen. When you call on certain people to be shot like he has - that's violent rhetoric.
He spoke in a non-violent manner, but the content of his words was anything but.
Using violent rhetoric probably does make you a target of violence, but that's not a very meaningful metric in my eyes. At the end of the day, there exists a clear line between violent rhetoric and violence. The victims at Charlie Hebdo brought violence upon themselves by "inflicting violence" upon the believers of a religion. Were they wrong to do so? Were their deaths karmic?
We are talking about persistent personal attacks on a specific person as a fascist threat. This murder is the physical extension of that specific rhetoric levied at Kirkz
I hope you can see the difference. Charlie Hebdo were mere satirists, but some pious followers of the Religion of Peace got “offended” and killed them.
I don't follow online discussion closely enough to know how how Mr. Kirk was spoken of by his opponents. I also don't know what sort of rhetoric he used, although it's also irrelevant to me. He could've been saying the most vile things 24/7 and I would still be horrified by his murder.
The whole, words are violence thing is just a technique to silence people who's opinions you don't like.
If you don't support free speech, you don't support democracy either. There are plenty of people in thr left who would be quite happy to have an authoritarian government go they could silence or punish any who dare disagree with their politics. That's an impulse mostly absent from the right.
No
No one is compelled to accept that invitation, even in a shithole country like America.
Charles Kirk at an event in SLC UT 2023: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth 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. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
By the man's own logic there is nothing to see here. In honor of that we should probably just move on.
Charlie's defense of the 2nd amendment does not diminish his worth or impact as a person who defended constitutional rights.
Such a morally simplistic, silly point. You can agree that a law should stay in place, acknowledge that there are trade offs and find the law on balance fair. That doesn't mean you agree that anyone should be able to take a gun and shoot them in cold blood for expressing their right to free speech in a respectful way. It's like acknowledging that cars can travel at certain speed on freeways, acknowledging that the trade off is that there will be traffic accidents, resulting in fatalities. It doesn't then mean that anyone has a right to drive their car at 100 miles through a crowded shopping mall. It certainly doesn't mean that logically there is "nothing to see hear". There is a particular vein of cruelty and callousness that can say that about someone who has just been murdered in public, leaving behind a widow and fatherless children...
But we're not talking about it because he was killed by a gun. We're talking about it because he was killed during a public political event. This would be just as big a story had he been stabbed to death during it. On the other hand, had he been mugged and killed while walking home at night with groceries, it would hardly have been a story at all. The only reason it might become more than a one-off report in that scenario is because Trump is currently playing up crime.
Isn't it being talked about because of who was killed? Wouldn't his murder have been talked about however it happened?
I would note that it looks like some 70+% of realized political assassinations post WW2 were by firearm (various sources cluster around that number). The remaining balance were almost all by explosives. You can't separate guns from political killings. They track closer than even guns and intimate partner homicides
It would have, but not to this extent. Imagine instead that one day he was hanging out with friends and was tragically killed when one of them mishandled a gun. He'd surely get an article due to his prominence, but that'd be it. At most, perhaps some left-wing outfits would write an article pushing for gun restrictions or improved gun safety. Instead, we're seeing bipartisan concern about the greater implications of his killing. We're seeing this very post from Yascha. The gun isn't the story, it's the assassination itself. Same as it would've been had he been stabbed or blown up. That being said, your point about political assassinations in the US being conducted with guns 2/3 times is a fair one. Non-gun assassinations can happen (see the UK) and gun assassinations can occur in countries with strict restrictions (see Japan), but access to guns must make it easier for would-be-killers.
BIG balz was mugged while walking home at night. And that provoked Trump enough to send the military into Washington DC. EVERYTHING is now a story. STORY TRUMPS FACT.
Indeed, hence why I included that final line. Usually, a high-profile person being killed in a mugging wouldn't be a major multi-day story national, but these aren't normal times.
No, Kirk was a very major conservative spokesman, murdered at a political rally. He had millions of followers. This is not merely being gunned up by Trump. This is shades of 1968.
I agree, I'm not saying it is being ginned up. I'm saying that, in an alternate world where he were killed in a mugging-gone-wrong, it wouldn't have been a truly major story. I was using that as a contrast to reality. My point is that this is notable not for the weapon he was killed with, but where and when he was killed in the context of who he was.
This is out and away the best commentary on yesterday's atrocity that I have read. Free speech means nothing unless it means that each person can freely express his views on matters of public importance, even if others are deeply offended by them.
If others find a speaker's views to be ill-conceived, cynical, denigrating, or malevolent, their remedy is to explain why and to convince others of their own preferred views.
Punishing or harming a speaker for his views is always a direct affront to our right of free speech, which for good reason is enshrined in the very first article of our Bill of Rights. Societies that repress free speech tend to founder over time, and those that respect it tend to flourish. That is not a coincidence. Free speech not only allows us, but obliges us to reconsider our views and to have them tested by the reason, logic, and experience of others.
Yesterday was a very sorry and horrifying day for the country. Full stop.
You’ve misspoken here:
Indeed, some Democrats already seem to have fallen into that trap, objecting to a Republican motion for the House of Representatives to observe a moment of silence in Kirk’s honor.
Actually, after 30 seconds of silence Bobert called for a spoken prayer to follow it. Dems objected to that.
CORRECTION to your post please: The Democrats did not object to the moment of silence. The entire chamber was silent for this time, ended when Johnson gavelled back to normal business. Republican Lauren Boebert, claiming that silent prayer is ineffective, asked for a spoken prayer. At this point, Democrats objected as it is generally unprecedented in these contexts. A shouting match followed, including Republicans accusing the Democrats for bearing responsibility of Kirk’s murder.
Was Charlie Kirk the collateral damage of "gun deaths" as he described in April 2023, or was he the victim of "gun violence" as the progressives proclaim. Gun deaths and Gun violence are euphemisms used by segments of a society that are engaged in an alternate reality of blamelessness. It's not my fault, I've been framed. Or, the other guy did it. Our society will collapse and implode unless it ascends beyond this blameless moral relativism.
Well said. At some point we need to say enough...wrong is wrong, no matter what "side" it comes from
I agree. Both extremes are comprised of the indoctrinated and have completely abandoned rationality. Each operates with a kernel of truth, but morphs and spins that into something that can deliver political power. This is not about solving problems or addressing issues. It is about an alternate reality seeking raw political power.
Note, though: it does not seem that a moment of silence was ignored. The chamber did that, but then Boebert demanded a *spoken* prayer, which led to the disruption.