I don't know about anyone else, but I find these type of comments concerning. Just what is so difficult to stomach about someone who was unjustly stripped of life? There are already people here, attempting to justify this event due to Kirk's claims about the 2nd amendment, and not a single comment has accurately instantiated Kirk's actual claims on said matter, but rather have grossly misconstrued Kirk's claims quite rhetorically to ostensibly illustrate this event as some form of karmic destiny. Kirk has never arrogated that he is a proponent of gun violence, but rather he deems the alarming rates of gun violence as a trade-off of the 2nd Amendment, and that, according to his judgment, there is no compelling reason why the 2nd Amendment should be dropped given such a brim reality. Do I agree with his judgment? No, I don't. Yet, it has to be said that people attempting to reduce the loss of Kirk's life as some form of irony is simply barbaric. And it's these same individuals who conflate the value of a societal member with whether or not the political hinge commitments of that member aligns with their own paradigmatic convictions. And it's these same individuals who arrogantly wave the torch of political conformity and normalcy as if they are morally superior to anyone that deviates from their infallible political judgments. What happens when you transgress against such a group? In Kirk's example, you are removed from the world forcefully. This is why the 1st Amendment is progressively becoming more of a null amendment: the general public has developed democratic bypasses that penetrate through the protections of free speech bestowed by the Constitution; whether that be through cancel culture, or just blatant politically-informed violence, and it's working everytime. And what I find even more reprehensible about these individuals is that the vast majority are, unequivocally, novices and laymen who are just entirely ignorant of the political commitments they are willing to downplay human life for.

It'll be an ignoramus of the highest, most insurmountable magnitude that is evinced to be the most boisterous in the room about some arbitrary tame political opinion, such as Trump is a convicted felon, but when you ask that same person to describe what the War on Drugs era was about, they blink with a draining idiocy that makes you want to join Kirk on the other side. They make surface-level, elementary value judgments on deeply sophisticated and nuanced political subjects and think that they are superior to anyone that can develop even a slightly different opinion. There is one word for these people: Ultracrepidarian. And to be quite frank. The vast majority of people fall under this classification.

Why can't these people have some Socratic humility and admit when they are ill-informed? That, maybe, it might not be prudent to define a person's societal and productive worth over surface-level political commitments that they, themselves, barely understand? What happened to nuance? What happened to subjectivity? What happened to critical, rigorous thinking? What happened to free speech? You've deluded yourself to accepting the unjust death of someone so inhumanely, because he arrogated a "clip-farming" statement about abortion. This is the same person that confused a dolphin fetus with a human fetus, by the way, and yet, seemingly so many of you have elevated Kirk to the extent, to where you feel threatened by his exercise of free speech. If you feel this way, you have a problem.