Charlie Kirk’s murder is wrong. The person or persons responsible should be prosecuted per the laws of our country and punished as determined by judge and/or jury. My opinion of Mr. Kirk is of no matter here. He was a citizen of the United States and had an irreducible right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jumping to conclusions and suggesting or demanding prosecution of any individual, group, political party, or anyone else is equally wrong prior to conducting appropriate proceedings and assessing the proper, legally adjudicated evidence as defined by our laws and current legal system.
No one should ever be allowed to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. This is why we built our Constitution and why following it/our rule of law created arguably the wealthiest and most successful society ever. These crimes are also wrong:
Murder of State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband;
Shooting of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife;
Hammer attack on Paul Pelosi;
Arson at the Pennsylvania Governor’s mansion;
The bajillion school/church/mass public shootings, car attacks, etc.
Source: ChatGPT
The notion that a few gun deaths are to be tolerated in order to preserve our Second Amendment rights is a terrible way to think. It demeans the value of other human lives. It’s disrespectful of humanity to say there is nothing we can do to prevent these horrific crimes.
If you don’t believe in the sanctity of all humans, then you don’t believe in the sanctity of any humans. If sanctity of life depends on one person’s or one group’s definition of who is worthy, then it’s only a matter of time until someone determines that your group does not deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
If you are outraged at Mr. Kirk’s death, and believe we should pursue the perpetrators to the ends of the universe, then you should be outraged at the school shootings and other political violence, including the January 6 riot.
If you apply different standards of justice and different processes in managing the judicial system, or if you attempt to apply pressure to tilt the outcome according to your beliefs or based on someone’s economic position, belief system, or expressed or implied opinions, then you don’t believe in rule of law. You believe in rule of law for thee but not for me. Rule of law is rule of law, equally applied, for everyone.
Most of these crimes, especially the school shooters, are committed by young, white males who have become radicalized in some way. Does this mean all young, white males are dangerous terrorists? No. In no way can we conclude that any of these crimes indict or indicate that ALL members of any group or party are dangerous, violent, and/or support political violence or mass shootings. These crimes are committed by people who think they deserve to be judge, jury, and executioner. These people stain our democracy and rule of law - for all of us - Maga, non-Maga, and those who are on the sidelines (please, please get off the sidelines).
How is it that other countries experience far fewer of these events? Can we not learn something from them and apply it within the context of our rule of law, individual rights, and Constitution? Is the unlimited, unregulated right of people to bear arms a higher priority, legally, morally, and ethically, than the right of people to be safe in their own homes, the right of Charlie Kirk to be safe in a public setting, the right of all of us to be safe in public and private spaces, and the right of schoolchildren to be safe in their schools?
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
--Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"