MIDLIFE CRISIS-19, Wednesday, September 10, 2025 – Elevate Charlie Kirk: “[The Right] is Not to be Mocked.”
But the Left will try. Propaganda? Rampant.
There is a sad twist of narrative circulating regarding Charlie Kirk's past comments regarding not merely gun violence, the Second Amendment, but what were really his statements regarding the innate rights of individuals as Americans in which the Second Amendment protects.
Take this headline for example:
"Past gun death remarks of Charlie Kirk, Trump ally and co-founder of Turning Point USA, who was shot at Utah College event will shock you" (1.).
The irony? Not Kirk's comments, nor were they shocking, but the spin, the propaganda? Par.
Context folks, context.
Here is the quoted reference, from the subject article:
"In the aftermath of the [2023] shooting, Kirk's past remarks on gun violence have resurfaced. In 2023, following a mass shooting at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, Kirk stated that gun deaths are 'unfortunately worth it' to preserve Second Amendment rights.
"According to Newsweek website, he said, 'It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment'" (1.).
Yet, that was a mere fragment of Kirk’s broader comments. He was referring to the value of our God-given human rights as Americans. He was making the point that removing a primary right of Americans, specifically the right to self-defense embodied in the Second Amendment, under the premise that you are protecting Americans, inadvertently not only spites our right to safety – which some would argue is the intent – but it spites our other rights, like the right of free speech, and will not protect us, nor will it stop gun violence.
***
Reference (2.) is a 00:02:02 minute excerpt from that speaking event, from which the above abbreviated excerpt came. With it, comes context.
“Now we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having armed citizenry comes with a price. And that, that is part of liberty. Driving, comes with a price. Fifty-thousand, fifty-thousand, fifty-thousand people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving; you would have fifty-thousand less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving: speed, accessibility, mobility, having product, services, is, is worth, the cost, of fifty-thousand 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 can significantly reduce them, by having more Fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. [applause]. We, 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 think, I think it is 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, ‘So, 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 of the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How did we stop all of the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all of the shootings at gun shows? Notice there is not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows? There’s all of these guns, because everyone’s armed” (2.).
***
Could the irony be eerie? Certainly, but Kirk was not advocating for gun violence, nor was he condoning it, nor was he saying to accept it for the benefit of having the Second Amendment. He was saying that the right to defend ourselves is God-given, while there is a risk to having that freedom. It is different when you frame it in the order in which he said it. He was further acknowledging the existence of evil, and that preserving our Constitutional rights – especially the 2nd Amendment – was our rightful chance at defending against it.
Mocking his comments, and out of context? Twistedly false.
The Left’s alternative?
Surrendering the Second Amendment.
Surrendering the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms, would only predicate truncating the First Amendment, our voice. It would have truncated Charlie’s political voice.
And, really, would surrendering our right to bear arms, prevent what appears to be a trained assassin’s bullet?
No, no, no, we must, “Fight, fight, fight!”
The Left silenced a man’s voice today, yet they have resurrected the voice of freedom.
***
Elevate Charlie Kirk: “[The Right] is not to be mocked.”
- Matfucius
2.) https://uk.news.yahoo.com/2023-video-charlie-kirk-saying-210026070.html