Sometimes the loudest voices shouting about “freedom” and “life” are the very ones cheapening both.
Charlie Kirk built his brand telling America that innocent deaths by gun violence are acceptable sacrifices to protect his interpretation of the Second Amendment. Now he himself has been killed by a gun, and the irony is as tragic as it is grotesque.
Let me be clear: I do not celebrate his death. Violence is never acceptable outside of true self-defense. I’m disgusted by anyone who cheers it. But I’m even more disgusted by those who claim to love life while defending policies that guarantee the violent deaths of our neighbors, including children who haven’t even had the chance to vote yet. Being Pro-Life Means Refusing to Die for Someone Else’s Gun Fetish
The Second Amendment is one sentence. Ten seconds to read (even if you read slowly). It calls for regulation, the only amendment that does. Yet Kirk and his followers twist it into a blank check for chaos, calling themselves “patriots” while undermining the very freedom and security that makes America possible.
And here is the truth that cannot be ignored. The rest of us do not want to live in a country where innocent people are murdered needlessly. We do not consent to having violent death forced onto our families and communities. Kirk and his followers may be comfortable with that fate, but they have no right to force it on the rest of us. The arrogance, the deadly narcissism, and the raw temerity it takes to impose that philosophy is not only immoral, it is profoundly un-American.
You cannot have family values if families are being ripped apart by bullets. You cannot have self-actualization if your life is cut short in a classroom or grocery store.You cannot be pro-life while excusing daily gun deaths as acceptable collateral damage.
I want Charlie Kirk’s followers to live long, healthy lives. But I also want their deadly influence over public policy gone. And the peaceful way we make that happen is simple: we show up in primaries, nominate anti-violence candidates who refuse corporate money, and finally give ourselves someone worth voting for, not just the lesser of two evils.
So I’ll ask you directly:
What’s one concrete step you’re willing to take this primary season to stop putting power in the hands of people who think innocent deaths are “acceptable”?
What would you ask every candidate about guns, freedom, and the value of human life if you had them in front of you?
Drop your thoughts below. Let’s make this the conversation they can’t ignore.