Charlie Kirk, brownshirt organizer and hero to insecure young men across America, was shot dead today in Utah. Kirk was on an outdoor stage at Utah Valley University in Orem polemicizing about gun violence. If Kirk remained true to what he said about gun violence two years ago in Salt Lake City, his last thoughts should have been, “Yeah, worth it“:
AUDIENCE QUESTION: How’s it going, Charlie? I’m Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I’m seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it’s important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?
CHARLIE KIRK: 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? [Charlie Kirk, response to question at Turning Point USA Faith event, Awaken Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2023.04.05; transcribed by Media Matters, reposted with emphasis by Jordan Liles, “Charlie Kirk Once Said Some Gun Deaths ‘Worth It’ in Order to Have Second Amendment,” Snopes.com, 2025.09.10].
So, followers of Charlie Kirk, honor his joining the thousands of Americans sacrificed at the altar of the Second Amendment. Celebrate his death as affirmation of our commitment to the constitutional amendment that protects us from tyrants.
And don’t demean Kirk’s memory with calls for empathy. He hated that word:
No empathy asked, none given, none implied.
I have empathy for his loved ones, none for him. He reaped what he sowed.
Utah has the death penalty, yet an assassination just happened there…
Everything happening today made me feel unwell, more so than most days for some reason. Wake up to Ukraine getting bombed, Poland getting invaded, this, more Gaza atrocities, more Colorado high school shootings, the list goes on. I don’t know what the White House, the Cabinet, or Congress are doing to improve lives; I see mostly cruelty.
Maybe I have too much empathy. Empathy for the human race since apparently we haven’t evolved much from whatever common ancestor we share with modern apes. I’m gonna throw up.
President orders falgs at half-staff for his young brownshirt-rouser… but did he order flags at half-staff when Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman was assassinated?
No HATRED without RED HAT!! Gonna go out on a limb and say with 100% surety noem nothing was not the shooter.
Kirks analysis for gun ownership “God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government.” is the real reason for the Second Amendment (sort of). The too often forgotten Introductory absolute phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” focuses not on the individual (as the Supreme Court incorrectly expanded the right), but on the Militia — the organized army of the people. Owning arms was necessary for a nation that could not arm its militias and had to rely on those men to bring their own weapons with them. By the Civil War, the US was issuing arms; this Amendment should have been cut out as an unnecessary appendix.
But it does beg the question, IF the shooter was protecting this nation against tyrannical government, does the Second Amendment wash away any criminal implications of this shooting?
– If Kirk rates a “half-staff” flag than he must have been considered a government asset.
– The shooter was thus protecting our nation from tyrannical government intervention by this rogue administration.
– Sorry, Charlie. Wrong tuna …
I have no empathy and mercy for the anti-gun depraved Democrats and their elitist
“LBJ/KGB” class warfare subversive agenda against our Second Amendment, innocent American gun owners, the NRA, and our firearms heritage! Five words describe the Democrat Party elite today: deceitful, crooked, immoral, treasonous, and socialist!
James A. Farmer Klamath County, Oregon. Long Live The State of Jefferson!
I’m not endorsing what happened to Charlie Kirk. I am saying Trump himself said it was okay after pardoning every Jan 6th rioter regardless of their level of culpability.
If only Kash Patel had some experienced senior officials to help him out…
None of your comments about Democrats are relevant or factual, Jim. Charlie Kirk was sacrificed at the altar of the second amendment. He said these needless deaths by gun violence are a price he is willing to pay to maintain the second amendment and his fiction that it somehow protects us against tyranny, even though his role in helping a tyrant, take power in the United States, demonstrates the falsehood of his own claim about the purpose and effectiveness of the second amendment.
But, Jim, you say you revere the second amendment. Do you honor the sacrifice of Charlie Kirk to uphold that second amendment?
Comments like Jim’s demonstrate one of the big problems with social media, one of the problems that kind of makes me back away from valuing the comment section. People like Jim who are steeped in Charlie Kirk’s rhetorical tea party flood the zone with comments that ignore the discussion of the actual hypocrisy within within their own parties statements and practices, and instead repeat at high volume, all their rage and hatred and baseless accusations against Democrats, good people who are trying to make society better, but who needs poor dupes like Jim make out to be devils worth shooting, as Jim does when he includes treasonous in his list of baseless labels. They turn up the volume, scream, aloud, and drive away the moderate sensible voices. I’d like to talk about what words and actions actually mean.
Please note the key difference between Jim and me. I won’t tell you that Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot. I won’t tell you that his death and the death of the children at the annunciation church in Minneapolis, and the deaths of the children at Uvalde, and all the other needless death by gun violence are somehow worth it. Charlie Kirk’s murder further demonstrates the emptiness of the second amendment promise of protection against tyranny and mayhem, and the danger the second amendment poses to our civil order.
I won’t call Jim a traitor. He’s just profoundly wrong, like Charlie Kirk.
“Charlie Kirk represented the very worst American political discourse had to offer, and I wish he were still alive so I could tell that to him, to his face, over and over again. I wish he lived long enough to see everything that he worked to achieve crumble all around him,” Nation writer Elie Mystal.
That seems a proper eulogy.
Mr. Farmer: “James A. Farmer Klamath County, Oregon. Long Live The State of Jefferson!”
Just to be clear, which Jefferson?
HI, O. Missed ‘ya, dude.
Missed all you regular commenters and the Master, hizownself. Gnarly Jerk got what he preached.
Question, why isn’t Ken Paxton in this unkrstianlike adminstration? He certainly fits the bill…. https://crooksandliars.com/2025/09/ken-paxton-caught-affair-christian
O, you bring a very interesting question to this “But it does beg the question, IF the shooter was protecting this nation against tyrannical government, does the Second Amendment wash away any criminal implications of this shooting?”
This is about as valid as it gets, in my view.