They lied about Charlie Kirk’s position on the Second Amendment and gun deaths. When you post the truth in it’s full and proper context their lies fall apart.
Transcript of Charlie Kirk’s full statement on the Second Amendment and gun deaths follows:
Austin: How’s it going, Charlie? I’m Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened A 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 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, 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 have not read any 20th century history. You’re just living in Narnia. By the way, if you actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you’re living because C.S. Lewis was really smart. Yeah. 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 a 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 in 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 product, 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, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have an 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 think it’s, I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worse 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 do we stop all the shootings at gun shows? No, this isn’t 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?
