Posted Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

The best and worst of humanity have revealed themselves in the week following the death of Charlie Kirk. Over 800 Americans have been forced to resign from their jobs after spewing hate online. Suddenly, harassing conservatives and inciting violence has consequences.

Democrats are continuing to use Kirk’s untimely passing as a method to promote gun safety. In his own words, Kirk explained that the right to bear arms has a deeper meaning than merely personal safety. The Second Amendment exists for the citizens to protect themselves against tyrannical governments. No actual dictatorship would permit the people to bear arms. No real communist or socialist regime would permit the people to bear arms. Lethal protection against government was precisely the intend of the Founding Fathers.

“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty,” Kirk explained, comparing gun ownership to the risk of driving as everything comes at 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,” he continued.

“Does it take shooting a conservative to start to realize the gun scourge? I hope they realize it,” Rep. George Latimer (D-NY) commented. “Pass some gun laws!” Rep. Jahana Hayes screamed during the moment of silence for Charlie Kirk. “I believe that anyone who has committed their entire career to obstructing gun safety legislation in this House has no right to blame anyone else for the consequences of their actions,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) chimed in.

Criminals do not abide by the law. The majority of these shooters obtain firearms illegally. It is also curious that we do not hear of conservatives shooting down liberals for discussing their views. Conservatives are not setting buildings on fire or vandalizing property in the aftermath of Kirk’s death, and yet, the media continues to portray the right as dangerous. Every aforementioned representative parades around Washington D.C. with armed security. They want YOU to be disarmed and unsafe while they enjoy the protection offered under 2A.

Kirk argued that places with armed security—banks, sporting events, airports—do not have shootings. Why? Law-abiding citizens are exercising their right to bear arms and ensure law and order. Disarming the public only enables the government to have blanket control over the population. It’s what they did in China, Cuba, the Soviet Union—the list could go on. The historical evidence is glaringly clear that gun ownership is the best protection against tyranny.

Here is the full transcript of Charlie Kirk’s dialogue:

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?