Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

An interesting reflection on this event.

This makes the situation all the more ironic if true:

America's Downward Spiral With Political Violence

What the supporters of "gun rights" fail to comprehend, despite their saying guns are "inanimate objects" is that "inanimate objects" can be turned against them. 

It's also poor policy to allow your opponents to be well armed.

Unfortunately, the concept of "gun rights" has allowed for the US to have way too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.

London Broadcasting Corporation's James O'Brien asks, 'Why are Charlie Kirk's words suddenly off limits?' Especially since Kirk did say about gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "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."

 

The best sentence I've read on this subject is: "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."

How can you condemn me if Kirk said, "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."

If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.  

Anyway, here's Tim Black for a final comment:

When we hang the capitalists, they will have sold us the rope

Charlie Kirk is the product of misrepresenting the Second Amendment to make it anything other than a declaration that the militia, that is the non-professional, part time defence force, should be protected.

The text says nothing of personal uses, in particular self-defence. In fact, the constitution makes it clear it only addresses the common defence (preamble: "provide for the common defence").

The phrase "self-defence" is absent from the text. 

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Anyone who wants to change the meaning of this, or wishes to imply that it applies to anything other than the common defence should be precluded from the practise of law.

In fact, the founders could have just said "fuck it, we screwed up" given what a mess they made with the war of  independence.

They didn't: they wrote a POS called the US Constitution.

Which includes something which was so insane as to be counter to their intent of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

I hope Scalia is burning in hell for his trashing of the law and the other Justices need to admit that they massively fucked up with Heller-McDonald and their progeny.

It's about the common defence,

Not a personal right. 

And show me where in the US Constituion it mentions a personal right to weapons, especially for self-defence, if you think I am wrong, or don't know what I am talking about. 

But, you can't do that because the text is silent on that topic.

Note: I added the photo since Charlie Kirk said gun deaths were 'worth it' to keep Second Amendment. I am not cheering his death, but this is an important point to add to this statement since his advocacy for this nonsense definitely contributed to his death. If it's wrong to quote Charlie Kirk's words then it probably was wrong for Charlie Kirk to make those comments in the first place.

"I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did."