Charlie Kirk, a well-known right-wing talking head, was shot and killed at his Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University on September 10th. The response online has been vast; some say that his death is a tragedy while others argue that it is a form of poetic justice. Your opinions of Kirk and what he stood for are yours and yours alone, and it is not an obligation for you to personally mourn his death. However, his death does spark yet another conversation about one of the things that he fought for: the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment was ratified in the United States Constitution in 1791, with its full text stating that:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Historically, this Amendment came in the aftermath of the American Revolution, a time when the American colonies had to fight a war to win their independence from Great Britain. The interpretation of this Amendment in American life today has evolved and raised questions: does this Amendment grant every single American the right to own a gun? Does this Amendment deem it acceptable for civilians to own military-grade firearms? Does this Amendment not allow there room for exceptions when it comes to gun access? The debate on this topic has been longstanding, evidenced by the lack of legislative change on gun access even in the face of modern mass shootings.
A conservative at heart, Kirk spoke in favor of the 2nd Amendment and in disagreement with gun control efforts on his platform. He went as far as asserting that gun deaths are an unfortunate part of having the right to bear arms, a “God-given” right. Additionally, he argued that the answer to lowering gun-related deaths was to install armed guards in schools and the presence of fathers in homes. All in all, Kirk sought to protect the rights of guns rather than having a system in place to determine who should and should not have access to guns. Kirk’s views are not unique; a poll of Americans in 2024 found that 84% of Republicans believed it was more important to protect the right to own a gun rather than controlling who can obtain one.
No matter where you fall ideologically, it should be understood that Kirk did not deserve to die in the way that he did. His wife and children do not deserve the grief they now have to carry with them. The hundreds of spectators that were there do not deserve the trauma they will live with. Just like how students, concertgoers, church attendees, and every single person that has died as a result of being shot did not deserve to be gunned down.
So, no, Charlie Kirk’s death–and the deaths of every single person as a result of guns–is not an “unfortunate” part of having the 2nd Amendment. People being needlessly and pointlessly shot and killed in the name of having the right to bear arms should never be normalized. It is unacceptable, and it would be increasingly preventable if our elected officials did something about this phenomenon that has plagued American life for way too long. And, maybe, it is likely that the gun control policies that Kirk crusaded against–such as red flag laws, universal background checks, banning assault/military-grade weapons, etc.–would have saved his life.
Sources
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113p
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-2-right-keep-and-bear-arms
.png)