Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

DP. Thanks, now I’ve read the whole statement. But it doesn’t make him or that quote sound any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

That’s even worse!

So he purported to have guns to protect against tyranny and HE DROVE PEOPLE to 1/6. Total hypocrite traitor.

Also, he said he wanted armed people to stop gun deaths, and it didn’t save him. Major fail.

A gun killed (not saved!) Charlie.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it very, very weird how, to the best of my knowledge, not one official from the Utah hospital, not one communication director, surgeon or nurse, ever went on record with any reporter? Meanwhile, at the church shooting in Michigan, the hospital had named officials on record immediately.

But according to "Charlie's best friend" an unnamed "surgeon" told him his buddy had "Superman" bones...?

"Dr. Michael Danic, the medical chief of staff at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital, provided an update on the victims injured in the Michigan church attack during a press conference on Sept. 29."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/09/29/michigan-church-shooting-press-conference-live-stream/86421353007/

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2025/09/29/doctor-gives-update-on-victims-injured-in-grand-blanc-township-church-attack/

Huh? No.

-RN and Democrat.

Conspiracy theory posts like this used to be for the Qanon pizzagate stuff of the right. Just stop.

Former journalist here. No editor I know would ever print that “man of steel” bullet-stopping miracle bones crap from an alleged surgeon without naming the surgeon. To me, that is manufactured horseshit, yet it was published by NY Post, Fox News, Daily Mail, and others.

The surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk said the bullet that killed him miraculously did not exit his neck, likely saving others from getting hit.

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet revealed on Saturday night that he had spoken with the surgeon who made the comments directly to him.

'I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two,' the surgeon told Kolvet.

A .30-06 bolt action rifle, the kind that was discovered hidden in the woods after Kirk was killed, is used to kill deer, elk, moose, bears and other big game animals.

Because this rifle can kill animals six times bigger than humans, the fact that Kirk's neck stopped this bullet was an 'absolute miracle', according to the surgeon Kolvet spoke with.

'His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too,' the surgeon said to Kolvet.

Didn’t name the coroner, either. Two lapses like this wouldn’t make it past a high school kid editing a school paper.

Kolvet also revealed the coroner found the bullet just beneath Kirk's skin.

'Even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him,' Kolvet wrote. 'Remarkable. Miraculous.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15118967/amp/charlie-kirk-miracle-surgeon-bullet-exit-wound.html

I agree the quote is manufactured and probably embellishment from whatever a surgeon told the family. But to expect a nurse, doctor, surgeon, etc to go on the record is ridiculous. I work for a major trauma center and everyone is expected to direct media to the hospital PR person; even then, the PR person can only say what the family permits due to privacy laws. Otherwise, you lose your job.

Doctors wear name tags. Running paragraphs of alleged verbatim quotes in major publications without a doctor's name is insane. The guy who was allegedly told this by an alleged unnamed doctor at the unnamed hospital is not family, he's just a TPUSA employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

Nope. But that's also the cost of gun ownership. He talked about the cost in lives, but he only meant deaths, not the mental health aftereffect for witnesses. Is that worth it? All these kids who have PTSD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it very, very weird how, to the best of my knowledge, not one official from the Utah hospital, not one communication director, surgeon or nurse, ever went on record with any reporter? Meanwhile, at the church shooting in Michigan, the hospital had named officials on record immediately.

But according to "Charlie's best friend" an unnamed "surgeon" told him his buddy had "Superman" bones...?

"Dr. Michael Danic, the medical chief of staff at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital, provided an update on the victims injured in the Michigan church attack during a press conference on Sept. 29."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/09/29/michigan-church-shooting-press-conference-live-stream/86421353007/

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2025/09/29/doctor-gives-update-on-victims-injured-in-grand-blanc-township-church-attack/

Huh? No.

-RN and Democrat.

Conspiracy theory posts like this used to be for the Qanon pizzagate stuff of the right. Just stop.

Former journalist here. No editor I know would ever print that “man of steel” bullet-stopping miracle bones crap from an alleged surgeon without naming the surgeon. To me, that is manufactured horseshit, yet it was published by NY Post, Fox News, Daily Mail, and others.

The surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk said the bullet that killed him miraculously did not exit his neck, likely saving others from getting hit.

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet revealed on Saturday night that he had spoken with the surgeon who made the comments directly to him.

'I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two,' the surgeon told Kolvet.

A .30-06 bolt action rifle, the kind that was discovered hidden in the woods after Kirk was killed, is used to kill deer, elk, moose, bears and other big game animals.

Because this rifle can kill animals six times bigger than humans, the fact that Kirk's neck stopped this bullet was an 'absolute miracle', according to the surgeon Kolvet spoke with.

'His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too,' the surgeon said to Kolvet.

Didn’t name the coroner, either. Two lapses like this wouldn’t make it past a high school kid editing a school paper.

Kolvet also revealed the coroner found the bullet just beneath Kirk's skin.

'Even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him,' Kolvet wrote. 'Remarkable. Miraculous.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15118967/amp/charlie-kirk-miracle-surgeon-bullet-exit-wound.html

I agree the quote is manufactured and probably embellishment from whatever a surgeon told the family. But to expect a nurse, doctor, surgeon, etc to go on the record is ridiculous. I work for a major trauma center and everyone is expected to direct media to the hospital PR person; even then, the PR person can only say what the family permits due to privacy laws. Otherwise, you lose your job.

The man allegedly told all of this by an unnamed doctor was not family, it was suddenly famous for reasons nobody can explain, Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile his gun death traumatized hundreds of college students, many of whom probably have PTSD.

Are you trying to blame Charlie Kirk for his assassination?

DP. Kirk, with what he said and did, put himself at heightened risk, and he knew it. That's why he hired a security team. I'm not blaming him for his assasination, but the guy preached about both the 2nd amendment, and personal reaponsibility. Tbh, he would probably agree, especially if it was someone else who got assasinated.

[Anonymous]

https://www.scribd.com/document/924955773/Kirk-Letter

Charlie's letter to Netanyahu.

Pretty much echoes what Tucker Carlson said as from the people who knew him.

I think this letter illustrates exactly what we are finding out about Charlie in the final 2~ years of his life.

He was undeniably pro-Israel, loyal to a fault, but that faith was being heavily contested by the truths and counter-arguments he was getting from the very people he was trying to create a bridge with on Israel's behalf at these debates.

Charlie was quite clearly stuck between a rock and a hard-place with absolutely no where to go. Either he doubled down and threw his conscious out the window by taking the hush-hush money and likely having a presidential run in near future or throw caution to the wind and try to toe the line.

It appears he went with option two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.scribd.com/document/924955773/Kirk-Letter

Charlie's letter to Netanyahu.

Pretty much echoes what Tucker Carlson said as from the people who knew him.

I think this letter illustrates exactly what we are finding out about Charlie in the final 2~ years of his life.

He was undeniably pro-Israel, loyal to a fault, but that faith was being heavily contested by the truths and counter-arguments he was getting from the very people he was trying to create a bridge with on Israel's behalf at these debates.

Charlie was quite clearly stuck between a rock and a hard-place with absolutely no where to go. Either he doubled down and threw his conscious out the window by taking the hush-hush money and likely having a presidential run in near future or throw caution to the wind and try to toe the line.

It appears he went with option two.

summary:

48% of 18—24 year old Americans support Hamas over Israel

Common questions asked on TPUSA campus tours:

- "Israel is an apartheid state."

- "Why does Israel conduct ethnic cleansing?"

- "Why is America subsidizing Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people?"

- "Is American aid helping to subsidize Israel’s free health care?"

- "Israel and the Jews are running U.S. foreign policy."

- "Israel and Jews are responsible for 9/11."

- "Defending Israel is not in our U.S. national interest."

- "Why is Israel trying to drag us into a war in the Middle East?"

Kirk: "I’m accused of being a paid apologist for Israel when I defend her; however, if I don’t defend Israel strongly enough, I’m accused of being antisemitic."

Kirk's Recommendations
1) a rapid response media team to battle the press every day. Kimmel was fired pretty damn quickly

2) I strongly recommend putting together a team of pro-Israel experts who can fact-check misinformation in real time from Israel. Israel needs to take the lead in this effort—no more dependence on subcontractors. Eliminate Charlie Kirk, check. Install his ecstatic to be in charge "wife", check.

3) You need something perhaps like an "Israel Truth Network" (ITN) which can include social media channels and a one-stop source of information website hmmm TikTok?

4) Have you considered inviting some of the released hostages to go on a speaking tour in the U. S.? I guess you need compliant hostages to drown out the anti-Netanyahu hostage families

5) Maybe interview regular Israelis on the streets asking them what they love about their country. good luck with that when 73% of Isaraelis want the crime minister to resign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.scribd.com/document/924955773/Kirk-Letter

Charlie's letter to Netanyahu.

Pretty much echoes what Tucker Carlson said as from the people who knew him.

I think this letter illustrates exactly what we are finding out about Charlie in the final 2~ years of his life.

He was undeniably pro-Israel, loyal to a fault, but that faith was being heavily contested by the truths and counter-arguments he was getting from the very people he was trying to create a bridge with on Israel's behalf at these debates.

Charlie was quite clearly stuck between a rock and a hard-place with absolutely no where to go. Either he doubled down and threw his conscious out the window by taking the hush-hush money and likely having a presidential run in near future or throw caution to the wind and try to toe the line.

It appears he went with option two.

summary:

48% of 18—24 year old Americans support Hamas over Israel

Common questions asked on TPUSA campus tours:

- "Israel is an apartheid state."

- "Why does Israel conduct ethnic cleansing?"

- "Why is America subsidizing Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people?"

- "Is American aid helping to subsidize Israel’s free health care?"

- "Israel and the Jews are running U.S. foreign policy."

- "Israel and Jews are responsible for 9/11."

- "Defending Israel is not in our U.S. national interest."

- "Why is Israel trying to drag us into a war in the Middle East?"

Kirk: "I’m accused of being a paid apologist for Israel when I defend her; however, if I don’t defend Israel strongly enough, I’m accused of being antisemitic."

Kirk's Recommendations
1) a rapid response media team to battle the press every day. Kimmel was fired pretty damn quickly

2) I strongly recommend putting together a team of pro-Israel experts who can fact-check misinformation in real time from Israel. Israel needs to take the lead in this effort—no more dependence on subcontractors. Eliminate Charlie Kirk, check. Install his ecstatic to be in charge "wife", check.

3) You need something perhaps like an "Israel Truth Network" (ITN) which can include social media channels and a one-stop source of information website hmmm TikTok?

4) Have you considered inviting some of the released hostages to go on a speaking tour in the U. S.? I guess you need compliant hostages to drown out the anti-Netanyahu hostage families

5) Maybe interview regular Israelis on the streets asking them what they love about their country. good luck with that when 73% of Isaraelis want the crime minister to resign

Good summary. I don’t think the assumption is Charlie would ever become anti Israel, but that he would become anti current leadership of Israel like many have become because he is realizing they are harming Israel more than helping, which he implies all over this letter. It’s an existential threat to Bibi. he literally has 2 court dates, one within Israel and one with the international criminal court aka The Hague. He’s lookin at 30 to life. America is quite literally the only country extraditing him..for now. He has to take direct flights here and can’t go anywhere else because just about all countries have agreed to arrest him if he steps on their land.

Imagine writing a letter to a war criminal homicidal maniac wanted by the globe and telling them they need to start getting in front of a camera more often and answering these 18 year olds questions themselves because you cant keep up with the 3rd degree from these kids and you shouldn’t be relied on so heavily to do so anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

DP. Thanks, now I’ve read the whole statement. But it doesn’t make him or that quote sound any better.

1) not given right to own a gun
2) shootings do occur at banks
3) shootings do occur at airports
4) armed guards are at schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

DP. Thanks, now I’ve read the whole statement. But it doesn’t make him or that quote sound any better.

1) not given right to own a gun
2) shootings do occur at banks
3) shootings do occur at airports
4) armed guards are at schools

Fixing 1) not a God given right to own a gun

[Anonymous]

This man was a media commentator not a politician. He’s dead, let him go and forget about naming streets etc after him. He’s a nobody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023

I know this is from way upthread, but I think it's worth reminding people that he said this. I'm sickened by the ruckus this nonsense has caused. He didn't deserve it. I did not deserve to have my social media Feeds and news channels polluted by this nobody and his death.

Meanwhile, Nigerian Christians are getting massacred right now by Islamist terrorists and nobody cares. It's not part of the Approved Media Circus.

Here is the full quote since you leftist morons never take the time to read or listen to the full statement.....

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

DP. Thanks, now I’ve read the whole statement. But it doesn’t make him or that quote sound any better.

And he's WRONG. 2A was never for "defense against tyrannical government" - that's an invented modern fiction.

Just look at history. Within a few months of ratifying 2A, Congress passed the Militia Act, which actually defines what a militia is (2A advocates always love to ignore that part with yet more of their own fiction.) But THEN, just a few months later the Charlie Kirk theory was put to the test, when a bunch of farmers and distillers decided it was "tyranny" for the government to collect taxes on their product, this became known as the Whiskey Rebellion. And what did those Founding Fathers, the ones who WROTE the Second Amendment do about it? Let them "resist tyrannical government?" NO. They authorized President George Washington to go out and squash their rebellion.

As for the rest of this tripe, the data shows that an armed civilian populace in America has NOT deterred crime. That is yet another fabricated fiction, peddled by the NRA to help gun manufacturers and gun dealers to sell more guns. If guns deterred crime, America should have significantly lower crime rates than countries with stricter gun laws. But instead we have higher crime rates.