Charlie Kirk and the Importance of Liberal Gun Ownership
| 9:16 AM (22 minutes ago) | |||
| ||||
Charlie Kirk built his career on dehumanizing others. His death reveals something of where we are and where we're heading. The facts of political violence in America have fundamentally changed over the last decade. Twenty-three people died in El Paso because a shooter believed the "invasion" rhetoric that Kirk himself amplified. Paul Pelosi had his skull fractured in his own home by a man hunting his wife. The Club Q shooter killed five people after consuming years of "groomer" rhetoric that Kirk helped mainstream. Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their home by someone who created hit lists of Democratic officials. These data points form a clear trend line: mainstreaming elimination rhetoric produces elimination attempts. The people who absorbed Kirk's message about "eradicating transgenderism from public life" remain armed, organized, and convinced that violence is both necessary and justified. Matt Walsh declares "Our war against this scourge is a defensive struggle. They started it. They wanted this fight. Now they have it." LibsofTikTok publishes locations of children's hospitals providing gender-affirming care, then celebrates when they receive bomb threats. Christopher Rufo boasts about freezing "critical race theory" into public conversation to "turn it toxic" as a political weapon. They are writing permission slips for violence, and their audience is collecting them. When those who openly discuss your elimination are armed and willing to act, what constitutes a rational response? The Existential Republic is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. For decades, the American left has prioritized gun control legislation over personal gun ownership, trusting that democratic institutions and law enforcement would protect vulnerable communities. This position assumed a social contract that no longer exists. When your political opponents move from debating your right to marry to debating your right to exist, the parameters of engagement have changed whether you acknowledge it or not. Figuring this out requires no special insight. If someone tells you they want to kill you, believe them. And if they tell you this while purchasing ammunition, believe them urgently. The Buffalo shooter's manifesto read like a collection of mainstream conservative talking points. The El Paso shooter could have been quoting from prime-time cable news shows. These killers absorbed their ideologies from people like Kirk who spouted elimination rhetoric while maintaining plausible deniability about its consequences. Expecting institutional protection remains a dangerous naïveté. Police response times for emergencies in rural areas often exceed twenty minutes. In cities, police have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to protect marginalized communities. The FBI warns constantly about white nationalist violence while somehow never preventing it. The liberal gun owner faces a basic fact. You can believe America would be safer with fewer guns while recognizing that unilateral disarmament in the face of specific threats proves to be an unwise decision. Basic game theory applies: when the other party has already defected from the social contract, cooperation becomes a danger. A clear distinction exists between fetishizing violence and preparing for defense. Synagogues that hired armed security after the Tree of Life shooting were acknowledging that conflict had already found them. Drag story hours that now require security details recognized that Kirk's "eradication" rhetoric had consequences, that someone might act on the permission structure he helped create. Training matters more than ownership. A firearm without competence endangers everyone, including yourself. Organizations like the Liberal Gun Club and Pink Pistols offer training without the cultural baggage of traditional gun culture. They teach de-escalation alongside marksmanship, legal responsibility alongside tactical skills. They understand that the goal is surviving long enough for help to arrive. The standard objection claims this escalates tensions. The escalation already happened. Tucker Carlson broadcasts great replacement theory to millions. Fox news says democrats are dangerous and the enemies of America. Charlie Kirk called for the destruction of entire categories of people. They continue to escalate their rhetoric. Their targets must now acknowledge this reality. We live in the world where Charlie Kirk is dead, and where his death is being mourned by people who share his views that "the violent left must be stopped at any cost." The next target list is already circulating and is probably being retweeted by the President of the United States, then retweeted by the richest man on Earth, and then shared to Facebook by your local Sheriff.. Political violence will continue. The only variable is your preparation when it arrives at your door. Kirk spent years telling his followers that their neighbors were existential dangers who needed to be stopped at all costs. His followers believed him. They still believe him. They own guns. They train. They prepare. They share memes about the coming civil war and make lists of who goes to the camps. The people who want you dead are already well armed. When someone tells you they want to kill you, shows you the gun they plan to use, and describes in detail how they'll do it, the rational response is ensuring they can't. The rational response is being prepared to stop them. The rational response is accepting that the world Kirk helped create, the embers he helped stoke, where Presidents and the mainstream media gleefully celebrate the suffering and death of democrats and marginalized communities, requires more than hope and the voting booth as defensive strategies. Kirk spent years building the architecture of stochastic terrorism, creating the permission structure for violence against the vulnerable. That same architecture, that same permission structure, ultimately consumed him. That same structure only requires targets and people willing to pull triggers. On September 10, Kirk discovered what it feels like to be on the wrong end of the rhetoric he spent years perfecting. Even more predictably, it looks like the killer was a MAGA fan boy. Republicans celebrate or say nothing when Democrats die. That's because they view anyone who isn't part one of their own as less than human. In response to Kirk's death, California Governor Gavin Newsom said "the best way to honor Charlie Kirk's life is to continue his work." No, Gavin. Kirk's work was to help make it a mainstream Republican belief that huge swaths of Americans should be violently exterminated. We live in the America that Charlie Kirk wanted: armed, angry, and ready to kill over disinformation and hate. The only question remaining is whether those being targeted will defend themselves. |
No comments:
Post a Comment