Charlie Kirk's Full Take on the Second Amendment
Every evil person cheering the murder of a dad of two young kids will burn in Hell. As some of them seem to think it's "clever" to quote one tiny phrase out of context, here is WHY they're also dumb.
[Whoops! I copied this first part (until the video) from ’s original post. I was glad I saw it, because I have dealt with people saying to me, “It’s ironic because Charlies said….” so I was going to write a piece on this, but already did. In the editing, I mistakenly removed the attribution! Apologies; the message about Charlie in any case is more important than either or me making you aware.]
Cheerleaders for Charlie’s death don't know the full context of his statement during a college stop. Beyond their being possessed by demons - I am not kidding - for laughing about and celebrating the murder of a father of two young children who did nothing but debate people civilly face to face, these stupid people have latched onto ONE partial statement about the Second Amendment as if that statement justified his being murdered by an evil, tranny-fucking Antifa loser with a rifle.
Sep 14, 2025
The leftist cheerleaders who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination are eager to use his position on the Second Amendment as justification for murder and political violence. And they base this on one interaction he had with a student at a Turning Point event.
The irony is that none of the cheerleaders has the full context of what Kirk said.
They cling to headlines from their Google searches as their “proof” that Kirk justified gun violence, and therefore, he deserved to be murdered for using words in a debate on a university campus. Of course, these are the same cheerleaders who claim Kirk’s assassin is a right-wing Nazi. They can’t even accept one of their own as a murderer, even though they celebrate murder as censorship.
Here’s the full transcript of what Charlie Kirk said about the Second Amendment, with the FULL CONTEXT.
Please share this with anyone who misquotes what Kirk stated to twist the justification of their grotesque celebratory outbursts.
College Student: 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? Thank you.
Charlie Kirk: 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. But because I actually speak my mind, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting, but 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. Come on, 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 CS Lewis was really smart. So, I don't know what what alternative universe you're living in, yep. You 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 that having an armed citizenry comes with a price. And that that 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 can significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, yes, by having more armed guards in front of schools. Yes, we 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. But I think it's, 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 do 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. Yes, how do 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 was a profoundly decent young man, doing the hard work of bringing civility in public discourse to counter the Marxist lies and sheer propaganda of Leftist stooges who have dominated academia since the Weathermen and Students for a Democratic Society set off bombs in America for “social justice.”
His murder will echo down the ages. His message will live on and the evil Leftist scum hell bent on ruining America will fail in their malicious attempts.
Here is not the place to expound on this, but every single asshole who has celebrated his murder has been recorded and repercussions will follow them for the rest of their awful, evil, soulless lives.
In Toronto we’ve had politicians and professors openly glorify the death of Charlie Kirk, calling him names before his family has even buried him. As usual, the intellectual featherweights throw around the word fascist without the faintest idea what it means. The very fact that we’re even having this discussion tells you something: a man who engaged in free speech and civil debate was murdered in a political assassination—by a liberal.
Now, notice something. I don’t see people on the right claiming that all liberals are going out to buy guns and shoot those they disagree with. Nobody is saying, “One liberal did this, so they’re all like this.” But that’s exactly the move the left pulls every time there’s a shooting, every time there’s a political crime: one person does it, and suddenly the guilt is smeared onto millions of people who had nothing to do with it.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated in front of his wife and children, and while his funeral hasn’t even happened, people on the left are mocking him, celebrating, and condemning him—safe in the knowledge that he can’t answer back. That is tasteless, tactless, and indecent. It speaks to the moral debasement of a movement that claims compassion as its calling card.
And before anyone trots out the tired “both sides” excuse: no, Republicans aren’t saints, but I don’t know a single conservative who would cheer the assassination of a member of the Squad if a right-wing lunatic did the same thing. Because there’s a line that decent people do not cross. Celebrating murder is across that line.
This whole episode reminds me of October 7, when 1,200 Israelis were butchered by Hamas, and before the bodies were cold the anti-Israel crowd was already blaming the victims. The same thing is happening here: the corpses are still warm, and instead of mourning or condemning political violence, the left mocks and vilifies the dead.
This is not ultimately a left-right issue. It’s a decency issue. And the hard truth is that in both Canada and the United States, it is the political left—on campuses, in unions, in certain political circles—that pushes censorship, justifies violence against opponents, and even defends terrorist organizations over democracies. The evidence is right here in the response to Kirk’s murder: a complete moral breakdown, laid bare
Meanwhile, some fool at a dinner party parrots the line about what good will your AR-15 do against f-15 fighter jets. That's when you mention how the North Vietnamese won a war barefooted, while starving.