I don't agree with Kirk's politics but it really doesn't take much effort to recognize that no, he didn't say he wanted to live in a country with gun violence. I think an honest interpretation is that he valued the freedom to own guns, despite recognizing that freedom might result in violence or death.
Gun violence doesn’t just happen to other people, it happens randomly and to anyone, even those who choose not to own guns.
Pointing out the irony that he died because of gun violence despite stating that gun violence is an acceptable cost is mean spirited and insensitive in the moment, but not incorrect.
He advocated for circumstances for which this could happen, he probably just assumed it would never happen to him.
I didn’t say Kirk wants this to happen, I said he wants to live in a country in which this happens. He knew gun violence was a trade off for the policies in which he advocated and he was willing to make that trade.
He didn't wish for stuff like this to happen. He was saying that the 2nd amendment is more important than losing it even if some people die as a result.
This is no different than many of us who think that the 1st amendment is worth retaining even if people use it to hire hitman or coordinate kidnappings and what not.
Part of the problem with defining the 2nd amendment as a defense against tyranny, like Kirk did, is that none of us have any control over how one crazy individual defines tyranny. I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights, but I do fear what they can do with their 2nd amendment rights.
> I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights
Plenty of people use free speech to do bad things. Look at Trump using his rhetoric to get into power. Or outside the US you can see all sorts of crazy leaders gaining power.
Sorry, I’m not going to follow you down this path. Violence is more dangerous than words. It’s one of the first lessons we all learn as kids, sticks and stones…
I'm not saying that words are more dangerous. I'm saying that allowing certain speech can lead to violence yet many of us would still like to protect free speech.
I'm talking about indirect calls to violence that are protected. Trump's rhetoric, despite an explicit statement to not break the law, led to January 6th.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. People support encryption saying they have the right to private communication and algorithms are protected under the first amendment. People use encrypted communication to do unsavory things like hiring hitmen, viewing child porn, etc.
Neither of those things are considered protected speech, and you can be imprisoned for conspiracy to commit kidnapping/murder even if neither actually occur.
And murder is against the law and not a proper use of the 2nd amendment. My point is that people can abuse their rights to do bad things. We don't use people doing bad things with their speech to remove the 1st amendment.
