Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
Not exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
His quote was his quote. Words unfortunately matter.
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
Doesn't matter either way. He was right.
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
I’m not saying he supported political violence
He said that some gun deaths are necessary for us to still have our 2A rights. His death is, unfortunately, a gun death.
I see you are just a retarded faggot. The Twitter morons including the one in the OP are celebrating it.
I don’t see any celebration in OP’s post
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
It literally is a gun death.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Did Charlie Kirk say he supported murder? Yes or no.
No.
He said that he believes that some gun deaths are worth it if it means the 2A is protected
Fuck off demon.
No thanks
Yes, but so does context.
https://xcancel.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
Yes, that was something else he said.
Both things are things that he said. They are not interchangeable.
It's the same fucking 50 second clip.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
You can't reason with goalposting shifting, shitlib faggots like Modeler. Save yourself the rage.
Yes, it is. And in that 50 second clip, he says several things.
I’m deeply saddened by violence too, but where he and I disagree is that I don’t think any gun deaths are worth it to protect 2A rights.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
Okay so then you’re saying the user in OP’s post is correct
Not exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
I’m sorry, who is saying that people want others to be shot? I agree that wouldn’t be a reasonable way to look at it.
Yes, I know
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
He’s saying that gun deaths are worth it in order to secure the 2A
Are you implying he’s saying other deaths, but not his?
Not they don't, because people like yourself will ignore meaning, intent, or context and invent your own.
If words don't matter then why are we debating what he said?