Charlie Kirk believed that gun deaths in America are a sad but necessary price to pay for keeping the Second Amendment strong. He argued that some people dying every year from guns is “worth it” because, in his view, having an armed population protects our other freedoms. He even compared it to car accidents… saying we accept traffic deaths as the cost of being able to drive.But here’s the problem: if you say it’s acceptable for others to die because of widespread gun access, you’re also saying it’s acceptable for yourself. By defending violence as a cost of freedom, Kirk tied his own fate to that same logic. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword” … if you embrace a world where violence is normalized, you can’t be surprised when violence finds its way back to you.RIP
>>515448232would be funnier if his family got shot instead of him. too bad they missed the chance.
American Liberals are funny. They are willing to give up their own rights just for a little security.
>>515448232Better stock on ammo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dP0TagcNvCg
>>515448232Fag.
>>515448232you do realize banning guns does shit because the criminals and animals will still have them (illegally)? grow a brain dumbfuck
>>515448232That doesn’t mean you’re allowed to murder people using your car, retard.
>>515449245Enjoy your drone strike. kek
The shooter took one shot. You don’t need a semi automatic rifle to accomplish what the shooter accomplished. Are you suggesting we should ban ALL rifles? Do you also realize there are more guns than people? How are you going to collect them?
>>515448232Sometimes, the life, liberty, and happiness they want to pursue is to see you enslaved, and that's why you're allowed to have a gun if you want. And if sometimes that gun or another is misused and you die, it's still better than that you not be allowed to have it. I do not think that Kirk would prefer survival at the expense of his children, but leftoids can't really understand that.
