"Charlie Kirk believed in the Second Amendment, therefore his murder is just." Is this logical to you?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is logical because Charlie Kirk did not believe in murder. He did not go around murdering people with guns who disagreed with him. I think that is like saying if someone believes in the legalization of marijuana and they die because their marijuana is laced with fentanyl, their death is somehow just/appropriate/acceptable. No, in my opinion because that person did not believe in fentanyl laced marijuana. I think if Charlie Kirk believed in murder, then you could argue his murder is just. But that was not the case. What do you think?

"Charlie Kirk advocated the Second Amendment, therefore his murder is acceptable." Makes sense to me!

No, that is dumb. More evidence why liberalism is called a mental disease.

[Chazmatazz269]

No. This is one of many completely irrational false equivalencies the leftists use to justify their rhetoric. Being a supporter of US citizens’ second amendment rights is not at all the same as supporting crime and violence. Meanwhile, which side is routinely letting known violent repeat offenders back out of jail and prison to reoffend?
100% of democrat endorsed “gun control” measures punish law abiding citizens for wanting to protect themselves and their families from criminals and a tyrannical government. All the while putting actual violent criminals on the street to victimize those same citizens with impunity.
Democrats want a disarmed population in fear for their lives and livelihoods so that they have to give 100% control over to government for “security”. It’s fascism 101.

[contentious]

That type of logical fallacy is easy to disprove, just substitute the the terms...

Charlie Kirk believed in the right to cut up a steak before eating it, therefore he deserved to be stabbed in the neck with a knife.

Charlie Kirk believed in the right to drink a beer, therefore he deserved to be hit by a drunk driver.

Charlie Kirk believed in the right to use bug spray on pests, therefore he deserved to be poisoned to death.

Charlie Kirk liked to drink water, therefore he deserved to be drown.

Just find something they believe in and then substitute it into the formula and see if they still believe in that line of thinking.

[contentious]

As for the retard in the other post that thinks the Bible doesn't grant the right to bear arms, all he has to do is read Luke 22:35-38 where Jesus is trying to prepare his disciples to live in the harsh world without him. He tells them if you don't have a sword to sell your cloak and buy a sword. When it is mentioned that they have two swords, Jesus says that is enough. The point is they need to be prepared to defend themselves from a hostile world when Jesus leave them. If you look deeper into that, you'll find one was a longer dagger (i. e. sword), and one was a short dagger. In today's world that would be equivalent to a long gun and a pistol. You're not meant to go out and start wars and amass large weapon cashes, but you are expected to arm yourself to protect yourself and other Christians.

[supercutebutt]

Charlie was more than pro-2A. He was pro-gun murders. He said gun murders are "worth it." I am against his killing, though. It's very sad that his murderer was raised in a staunchly conservative home that is ultra-MAGA. It has become apparent that conservatives cannot be trusted to police their own children. The Trump shooter was also raised in a gun-loving, MAGA home.

Gun control now.

[Asker]

That doesn't mean he thought murder right. He just accurately noted that gun deaths are a natural results of gun rights. And he is right. He did not murder other people or go around murdering his political opponents.

[supercutebutt]

Nor have I. But Charlie did contribute to murder. He was virulent racist and a vile homophobe. He inspired countless murders with his hateful rhetoric. He was the opposite of a Christian. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors. Charlie had deep, sinful disdain for his neighbors. It's a shame because now he is rotting in Hell :(

I wish he was alive so he could atone for his sins. I hate violence. Gun control now!

[Apple1996]

By his own words/opinions then yes technically he believed his own murder was worth it to keep guns... if he only believed in the second amendment and not the gun deaths then itd be different

[OlderAndWiser]

If I advocate for the right to own cast iron frying pans, does that mean my wife is justified in hitting me in the head with the cast iron chicken fryer?

[loveslongnails]

Nice job fitting the choices to what you want the responses to be. Liberal thinkers don't make statements like that -- conservatives make statements like that ABOUT liberal thinkers.

Here's what CK said about gun violence: "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."

To me, this statement is fraught with misguidedness. Where did God you give the right to have guns? God didn't write the Constitution, men did. And the 2nd amendment was written to give citizens the right to maintain a "well organized militia", to protect themselves against government soldiers doing unlawful acts. That's exactly what Trump has them doing now.

[Asker]

Umm... you are making Kirk's statement fit what you think about him. The flaw in your logic is that Kirk did not believe murdering innocent people is okay. He would have condemned every murder that resulted from gun violence if it was murdering an innocent person. Yes, it happens as a result of the Second Amendment, but that doesn't mean it's good/right/just/acceptable. It is an unfortunate consequence.

[loveslongnails]

What I "think" about Kirk is a result of what Kirk said.
Kirk EXPLICITLY believed in the murdering of innocent people, and innocent children; he supported Netanyahu's campaign of genocide. Given the opportunity, I've no doubt he would signed some of the bombs, but that's just a guess.

YOU are trying make the 2nd amendment into something it's not, as did Charlie. You should read the wording of it and understand what it was designed to mean, especially at the time, and not what you WANT it to mean now.

Stricter gun laws do NOT take away your man-given right to own them. CK thought it was somehow a God given right to own weapons because God influenced the men who wrote the Constitution and the 2nd amendment gave him the right to bear arms, period. That's what he professed.

[BadApple69]

The second amendment is part of the constitution. There isn’t anything to believe or not believe in.


You can’t say I “believe” in the constitution but not that part with the free speech. Or yea but I’m not sure about the part about illegal search and seizure.


The constitution is a whole document and if you “believe” in it, you believe in the whole document. I know people that agree with the second amendment but don’t own guns and don’t really like guns.
I honestly don’t know if Charlie Kirk owned guns.

[Hardon-Collider]

It is not logical at all. It is a noteworthy untruth. Your logic is completely sound. Charlie Kirk was killed. That is an untruthful and unjustified act. Whether he believed in the Second Amendment or not is irrelevant to the truth that he was murdered. You're right, it's like saying if someone believes in the right to have a gun, they deserve to be murdered with it. It's a category error. The murder was an act of violence against him, not a 'just' or 'appropriate' outcome of his beliefs. It was an untruthful act, a crime, that has no moral connection to his specific beliefs.

[Syntosi]

Charlie Kirk explicitly said that people being murdered by guns is an acceptable price to pay for having the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, Charlie Kirk also said that "some patriot" should bail out the assassin that targeted Paul Pelosi so I dont think you get to say that he was against murders when it favored him politically.

[Asker]

The flaw in your logic is that that doesn't mean he believed murdering people is okay. He would have condemned every murder that resulted from gun violence if it was murdering an innocent person. Yes, it happens, but that doesn't mean it's good/right/just/acceptable. So dumb.

[Syntosi]

But he did not condemn every murder that resulted from gun violence.

[Asker]

What does that mean? You and I have not condemned every murder that resulted from gun violence either. That does not mean we condone it.

[Syntosi]

And yet he has been fairly supportive of political assassins such as the guy who tried to murder Nancy Pelosi.

[Effably]

Obviously murder is bad. Is it ironical that a guy who said he is perfectly okay with some people being shot to death every year ends up in that statistic? Yes. Does comments like him saying dying children do not deserve empathy and that empathy is a sickness make it hars to feel sorry for him? Yes.

Does that make it okay? Of course not. A crime is a crime and every criminal should pay for it. Something I hope we all agree on. No matter who that criminal is.

[Chazmatazz269]

I defy you to provide empirical evidence that Kirk ever said what you’re claiming.

[Asker]

Is it ironic that a person who believes in the legalization of marijuana ends up dying because his marijuana gets infused with fentanyl?

[Effably]

Chaz don't be a dolt. It would take you half a google. April 5th. 2023, TPUSA faith event for the first one. Oct 12, 2022 for the second. His own show. Now, will this make you change your mind or did you just want to be problematic?

As for Asker, no? That is entirely different given the argument is that legalization would ensure it was problem free. The equivalent to hat is if Kirk had said that he thinks a mental test should be done for gun control and then got shot by someone from an asylum. Basically proving him right.

I personally do not support guns or marijuana but I do support using our brains. Come on guys. You are better than this.

[MuddyMole]

"Just" would be the wrong word. It's more of a "Well, we tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen, and now look..." kind of feeling. It's the same for all the farmers who voted for Trump, and are now going bankrupt as a direct consequence of his policies (not to mention begging for federal aid, despite being staunchly opposed to welfare) - they're not bad people, just very stupid people, who should've listened and are now paying the price.

[Ariesman81]

@MuddyMole

It couldn't be that farmers are going broke because they made decisions and chose to become subsidized? Or could it be that they understood that the current direction of things was unsustainable and chose to correct their course?

[abc3643]

Don't blame liberalism for such a stupid statement. Blame the person who said it who is fucking idiot. Statements that stupid aren't from ideology from from idiocy. And YOU should know better too which is why I am annoyed that you wrote "More evidence why liberalism is called a mental disease." I think perhaps you need might be the one with the mental disease.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/C125bwd2MKM

[DrPepper12]

Specifically he said that loss of some lives is an acceptable sacrifice for keeping the second amendment. b He became a victim of his own beliefs. I'm quite sure when he said that, he wasn't thinking that he would be the one in a pine box.

[BeenThereLovedIt]

truth hurts

[NaultD]

It's not just. I'm making it a point not to send flowers or blow smoke out my ass. Higher condolences and consideration then he had for other family's in his last words before dying.

[NoDecision]

Let's talk about the living's problems, and not the dead. Like who do you think will be the next one to be assassinated.

[Anonymous]

That's like saying if you're a car enthusiast, it's acceptable for you to be run over.

[Twalli]

I would have agreed, however it's clear you can't be unbiased in asking questions

[exitseven]

He believed in the First amendment too. That is what really got him killed.

[msc545]

Truth.

[Anonymous]

libtards are right about gun control though

but it's them who are too mentally ill be allowed to carry guns

[IamRight]

Nope, thats some bullshit. Typical vile leftists.

[Anonymous]

Just? No. But that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for him. He wouldn't want that anyway.

[Staximus]

This is not a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword".

[Sal_Monella]

Absolute nonsense. Product of an ignorant twisted mind.

[SweetDripp]

The Second Amendment doesn't make murder legal.

[Metaworld]

So is it like water? You might like surfing, swimming, and diving, but still draw the line at being waterboarded?

[SweetDripp]

@Metaworld No, nothing like that. Why overcomplicate this? The Second Amendment allows you to have a firearm for lawful protection. It does not permit the use of firearms in the commission of unlawful activity.

[Metaworld]

It was a joke.

[Anonymous]

I believe in cars so I can run over people! You see how stupid u sound? Just admit you’re a dumbass

[beefcakebradybatson]

H**L to the NO, and those espousing this comtemptible drivel are MORONS !!!

[seeyounexttuesday]

Only demons would think that.

[Dargil]

Nonsense.