“A man was murdered over his ideas. If that doesn’t appall you, we may be too far apart politically to ever reconcile.”
I normally post weekly, but the reactions online to the Charlie Kirk shooting demanded more than silence. In my last piece, I addressed those celebrating his death. Today, I want to focus on the subtler rationalizations — the “both sides” deflection, the misattribution of blame, and the assumption that the victim brought it on himself.
“Both Sides” Is a Cop-Out
Some have tried to frame this as political balance, pointing to the recent killing of a Democratic representative. But the situations aren’t equivalent. In her case, no one celebrated her death; people condemned the killer and distanced themselves. With Kirk, we’ve seen excuses, rationalizations, and even celebrations.
It’s hypocritical. While some claim victimhood over words they deem “violence,” that same group routinely labels anyone they disagree with as sexist, racist, or Nazi. They portray themselves as victims while demonizing the other side. That’s not balance — it’s selective outrage, and it erodes moral clarity.
Supporting the Second Amendment Isn’t a License to Kill
I’ve seen people argue as if Kirk’s support for gun rights somehow makes his death ironic or deserved. This is a common tactic: assuming that anyone who supports the Second Amendment wants children murdered in schools. It’s disingenuous and reveals that their argument doesn’t come from understanding, but from assumption and misrepresentation. The Second Amendment is about self-defense — protecting yourself, your family, your community, or even, in a broader framing, against tyranny. It has never justified murdering someone for their ideas. Pretending otherwise is childish, barbaric, and undermines the rule of law.
Blame Where It Belongs
The shooter alone is responsible. Not the speaker. Not the Constitution. But if there is any spare blame to go around, we should ask: how do the people who constantly equate basically all conservatives to Hitler bear no responsibility for radicalizing a mentally unstable person? We want to sue gun manufacturers for the violence their products enable — how about holding accountable the “assassin manufacturers” who decry everyone they disagree with as literally Hitler? Treating victims as responsible for someone else’s violence inverts morality and corrodes the foundation of a constitutional republic.
Moving Forward
This isn’t about ignoring broader issues. We need honest conversations about violence, mental health, and the conditions that lead people to pick up guns. For starters, people could begin debating in good faith — genuinely trying to understand the point of their opposition instead of assuming malice. Consider this: people who advocate for minimal gun control for the most part don’t want to see more children murdered. People who are pro-life — which I wouldn’t necessarily classify myself as — don’t want to control women’s bodies; they want to protect babies. How can you have a good-faith argument when every position is assumed to come from the worst motives? Shutting down debate happens far more on one side than the other, and this pattern contributes to polarization and, in extreme cases, radicalization. But those conversations must start with clarity: murder is the act of the murderer — nothing more, nothing less.
Final Thought
Free speech means defending the right to speak even when we despise the message. If disagreement becomes grounds for killing, the premise of a constitutional republic collapses. Debate, protest, write, boycott, vote — those are the tools of a free people. It’s been said freedom is defended in several boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. What do you do when someone’s murdered on the soapbox?
Violence Is Violence—No Matter the Idea
Life after door kicking. 
Leave a comment