Gemmer
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 9 de Mayo, 2025
Charlie defended the 2nd amendment right so that you could defend yourself against a nihilistic government with firearms, if necessary. No guns = defenseless.But then Charlie also advocated that it’s worth a few people dying through gun violence to guarantee people retained their “God given” second amendment rights, and eventually died through an act of gun violence. Clearly his death is not worth that, otherwise he’d just be yet another footnote in a long string of innocent people being shot to death.
People absolutely should be calling out the perverse absurdity of the situation here in whatever way helps them keep their sanity. Charlie died defending the very idea which allowed someone to kill him in the blink of an eye, and how does one reconcile that? He got shot because of his opinion, and his opinion was that it’s worth people being shot and killed so that everyone can possess guns like those used to shoot and kill him.
“You were only saying that because it hadn’t happened to you” has become an absolutely valid posthumous rebuttal to his viewpoint on gun violence, even more so because he advocated that life itself is sacred. No amount of “but it was God’s will” tomfoolery can change that.
He also advocated for better security at schools.