Charlie Kirk was assassinated Wednesday while speaking at a college in Utah. There will be many details forthcoming, as the investigation into Kirk’s murder progresses. But make no mistake, Charlie Kirk was killed for speaking his mind.
Opinion
The footage circulating online shows Kirk uttering the words “gang violence” and then suffering what looks like a gunshot to the neck.
Kirk’s style of engaging with young people is widely known and recognizable. Not quite a trademark, but he did it more actively than anyone else: the back-and-forth, the conversation, the debate.
Sometimes that devolved into “the own.”
In America, we risk getting “owned” by a conservative (or liberal) influencer once in a while, when we teeter onto the beam of free speech.
A little blushing, a little back-pedaling, and we’re on our way: embarrassed, but free to be embarrassed in the crossfire of ideas.
It is this free exchange of ideas that flows from the First Amendment to our Constitution. Our national discourse has room for all points of view, even if those ideas are odious to some. Our guarantee to say what is on our mind makes each of us uniquely American, and to thwart that freedom with violence in the marketplace of ideas diminishes us all.
To accept what happened to Charlie Kirk as somehow par for the course is to say that, in America, violence is more powerful than words, that bullets are more important than ideas.
To say Kirk deserved to be shot for his point of view is reprehensible.
But even as we recognize how reprehensible that notion is and feel it pucker places the Constitution doesn’t address, we can’t take the bait.
We can’t meet violence with violence.
Let words be your sword. Let ideas be your honing stone.
And if you can’t enter the debate because your ideas suck and you stumble over your words, just listen for a while.
Consider the painstaking thought that formed our Constitution and its declarations of rights. Consider the forge that produced them.
A convention. A meeting.
A bunch of young bucks and their token old guy — Benjamin Franklin, the titan of outspokenness and the press’s true patron saint — swapping ideas. Not crossing swords.
They made an America where words are mighty.
We are both journalists. That means we belong to the only occupation whose freedom to operate is enshrined in the same First Amendment that guaranteed Charlie Kirk’s freedom of speech. The national cacophony of rhetoric erupting in reaction to Kirk’s murder is also protected by the First Amendment, even if some of it might make your skin crawl.
But as journalists, our loyalties must lie with the Constitution and the freedoms that it guarantees, not with one side or another in this acrimonious debate.
We fumble as a nation for something to help us rise above the murky political resentment and tribalism that grip our country and poison our thinking.
For us, that something is our liberty as citizens of the United States to express ourselves freely. When anyone, for any reason, tries to negate that freedom through violence, we must speak up.
And we must bridge our lesser differences to do so.
The open marketplace of ideas has been systematically dismantled by the evils of wokeness. It is a mind virus. The Oppressor vs Oppressed paradigm has poisoned the well, and Kirk ticked all the Oppressor labels.
In this paradigm, violence becomes a right, even a virtue. “Poor me, I’m oppressed”. Victimhood replaces rational thought and consequence of actions. Immediately, I’m now justified to do whatever I want, steal whatever I want, harm whoever I want. It all now becomes virtuous.
To solve this civilizational killing dilemma, let’s start by abandoning wokeness. Clarity and the goodness in human nature will again have a chance to dominate the day.
I would argue the “mind virus” is thinking that educated, empathetic human beings are the problem. I would say there might be too much Fox rattling around the ole brain cavity is the actual mind virus.
“Wokeness” is killing people? What bizarro world do you live in? You support a president that has no filter on his bigotry. The chrump party, who you are a proud member of, has vilified minorities, taken insurance from the disabled, and has done its best to cripple to poor and middle class. You claim “wokeness”? You are not a serious person
Yes, wokism is synonymous with neo-Marxism. The goal is to have the oppressed rise up against the oppressors, remember? The glorious global Communist revolution that’s been fed for the last 175 years. Pick your number how many have died in so many struggles across the planet. 100 million? 200? They’re too numerous to accurately know.
A giant guy let out of prison over and over plunges a knife into the neck of a tiny white girl from behind. He’s the victim. The creep through the church stained glass windows guns down 3rd graders as they pray. He’s also the victim. Wokism at its finest. Let the glorious revolution continue.
Over 40 years ago, during the Reagan administration of the early 1980’s, there were violent murders linked to anti-government groups that had a lot to do do with job losses, recession, inflation and Reagan’s failed “Trickle down economic policies”. Regular interest rates were as high as 19% in Wyoming. I know because in 1982, I had one of those loans. I got through it all by taking a sizable cut in pay for the privilege of continued employment, while my wages flatlined for the next 12 years. There were many laid off workers who weren’t given that option–some of whom bought into the various anti-government sentiments prevalent at the time.
In 1983 Gordon Kaul a Dakota farmer, who was a member of a paramilitary group called “The Posse Comitatus”, had a shoot out with federal marshals trying to arrest him for not paying income taxes. He was later tracked down in hiding and died in a house fire.
That same year Alan Berg, a liberal radio personality was gunned down in front of his home in Denver by a supremacist group called “The Order”, primarily for just being a Jew. The perpetrators were eventually caught and prosecuted by the same government they sought to overthrow.
I’m just saying that today’s polarized political rhetoric and economic uncertainty are perhaps spawning more of this seemingly endless loop of tragic human behavior. Alan Berg and Charlie Kirk had a First Amendment right to free speech under the Constitution, as do we all. History has proven over and over, bullets kill people, but they do not silence the voices. I have faith that the rule of law will prevail in this situation, just as it did in the 1980’s. We were better human beings than this back then and I pray we still are.
Mr. Stocks we are far better humans today than those living in the 1980s. In fact murder, violent crime, rape and unintended pregnancies are all WAY down since the 1980s, but people are almost hard wired to complain all the time about how bad it is now compared to the past. In the past 30 years kids and adults have become more empathetic and caring than when I was a youth.
Mr Hunter I’m grateful that you have an opinion also and a need to express it. I hope you are not trying to say that people like my grandparents and their friends, or their children, my parents, who survived the Great Depression and fought in two world wars against fascism and tyranny, were lesser human beings than you or I. My statement used the word “we” and in my now aging mind, I was thinking generally about those who are no longer here anymore and simply praying that some of their common sense and compassion is still present in most of us. Most of them whom I knew, would have a very hard time understanding why someone would feel motivated to assassinate a political opponent just for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. I suppose that such a deed will always beg the question: “Why?” I know as well as anyone that history does not have a demarcation line between the good and bad decades or even centuries for that matter. The proverbial “Why” for Charlie Kirk’s September 11, 2025 shooting, can be just as enigmatically applied to April 14, 1865 or November 22, 1963. Yet, all three assassinations had undeniable political motive which evolved through simple planning to take advantage of a given set of random circumstances. The planning of a killing alone suggests the person has given in to a cold-blooded lack of conscience. Unfortunately, conscience is something that cannot be legislated. Therefore, the rule of law must prevail or be lost. Thank you for your reply. I truly do appreciate your opinion.
“….were lesser human beings than you or I.” I would ask you to look a little more closely at the data for the whole of the US and then the World. In each and every country, prior to 1990, the violence associated with any cause whether it be about fighting fascism in Italy, religious violence in Ireland, racial violence in America have all become less violent to non-existent. I am going to have to disagree about humanity and violence, because we have become less violent since the EPA began enforcing pollution standards for neurotoxins.
In 1990 there were 2,295 murders in NYC and this year there have been about 250 murders in the same city. In 1990 I had zero guns even as crime in large cities was high and now that crime has dropped, the number of weapons that were purchased in that time has been approximately 290 Million. So as crime went down we flooded the US with guns with less and less oversight as well as little effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Think about that, things got better but Americans were convinced to arm themselves and to me that is nutty.
I am a big believer in the #2A but the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, written by Clarence Thomas, did a huge disservice to the intent of that Amendment. Clarence purposely ignored the Militia Act of 1792 in that decision which has hamstrung law enforcement from ensuring that those that obtain or use weapons are “well regulated”.
Thanks for your words and I do believe kids today are far better humans because they are less poisoned by Lead (Pb) than I was, but to be fair I took a ton more risks and had a great time as an erratic youth whom his parents could not understand. If you look at data concerning crime, there can be no other determination than that life today is far less dangerous than in 1990.
Thanks again for your reply, Greg. I understand and believe your sincerity from involvement as a former political candidate.
To be fair, I’m not currently active in political movements, nor have I ever been affiliated with any political party. I have voted consistently since 1972. However, I grew up in a small town/community in Wyoming, so aside from working in Rock Springs during the boom and bust of the late 70’s into the early 80’s, I probably didn’t get the same live exposure to crime and corruption you may have encountered in Ohio. In my original comments, I was referring to the late 70’s early 80’s when disgruntled farmer’s were losing their long held family lands to high interest rates and banks and Wyoming’s minerals extraction and construction workers were losing their jobs right and left. Some individuals developed anti-government sentiments, formed paramilitary groups in the rural West and decided to disregard the rule of law. I truly believe it was a time that closely paralleled ours socio-economically, as I have tried to point out. The difference now, is the torrent of Internet information/misinformation delivered by skewed social media platforms controlled by algorithms that target the individual psyche into buying not only products, but into mass political movements, most of which would not have become en-mass without the constant exposure provided to them by the technology. Yeah, I know you and I are using that same technology right now to express opinions, but so far neither of us has quoted from a certain dominant news agency or tried to misdirect the conversation with propagandized talking points. I’m sure your statistics are accurate and frankly your optimism is admirable. On that note, I will end my current expression of opinion and may decide to keep it to myself in the future. If history has taught me anything about personal commentary it has been— like the song says—“You can’t beat the machine.” Although, it doesn’t mean we can’t try.
Very well written. It is sad that even I am afraid to speak my mind in Wyoming for fear of retaliation in some form. Sad days ahead.
The Second Amendment has declared war against the First. Freedom of speech and assembly vs the right to keep and bear arms. Guess who’s going to win.
I usually disagree with most Wyofile opinion articles; but this is a pleasant exception that I hope becomes more common to balance out Wyofile’s coverage.
Harder to get a passport than a gun in this country. Thems American values.
Thank you for such a thoughtful, well written piece. We needed this.
Thanks for the eloquent reminder.
Two sides in an intractable standoff, ears that cannot hear, eyes that cannot see.
Only one side is right, the other is evil, no way out, no one is trying.
Doesn’t matter if all will lose, just keep the other from having a say. Dig deeper and deeper only one can prevail.
The end of this trail is hideous at best. America dying will not be pretty. But that is the trail we are on.
Are we civilized enough to stop this madness? Is there a leader to show us the way out? Prospects are pretty bleak.
If there is any hope at all maybe we can try as individuals to be better humans. Humility, compassion, kindness, understanding, sharing, empathy: this is true strength and courage but for fear and hate hard to initiate. But we need to try.
Dave Gustafson
Well sai, Rod and Clair!
108 Americans will die by gunshot each and every day in the United States according to gunmemorial.org.
45 separate school shootings have occurred in our country since January.
Every single one of these deaths is a horrific tragedy.
This is a sickness that transcends politics.
The majority of firearms deaths are suicide, the majority of school shootings are gang related.
10s of millions of good people own hundreds of millions of firearms in this nation and will never harm a soul.
You don’t punish the innocent by stripping them of their natural rights as a human being.
You may shoulder your musket now Mr. Guenter and stand at ease. I have no intention of infringing on this particular one your natural rights nor any one of the Constitutional rights belonging to the tens of millions of other good people itching to make their marks on a militia muster roll. I was simply stating the fact that Mr. Kirk was one soul among a hundred that day (and every day) who has had his ticket punched with a bullet. Politics, suicide, gang violence, accidents, and tens of millions of other excuses aside: This is a hideous and pervasive sickness that has absolutely no righteous explanation.
As a student and teacher of language, I have little good to say about the killing of Charlie Kirk. So, I will let the following idioms/proverbs speak instead.
6th century BCE—Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”
New Testament (Galatians)—A man reaps what he sows.
New Testament (Matthew)—Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
1650s—Those who play with fire will perish from it.
1680s—He who pays the piper calls the tune.
1800s-Curses are like young chickens: they always come home to roost.
1850s—He was left to stew in his own juice.
Truth. From two of Wyoming’s most respected journalists. Thanks, Rod and Clair.
Like many political assassinations throughout history the culprit and motive, are not always what it appears.
Charlie Kirk’s may end up different without a dead or incoherent babbling patsy to take the blame.
This case is most likely far more complex than an angry leftist outraged by Charlie’s position on most every hot button issue.
Chad I agree about the case as it appears that Charlie Kirk wasn’t racist enough and backing off the Epstein file release might have upset the more virulent part of MAGA world. Fuentes and Loomer are backing away from his killing at warp speed.
Charlie Kirk was good at the debate, but his followers, the ones he praised and gave awards to are an intolerant lot. They want to pass laws to make this a Christian Nationalist country, which tilts the delicate balance of the 1st Amendment toward protecting religious ideas more than the free expression of humanity. Unfortunately we have a corrupted SCOTUS that is more than willing to put that plan into action even as it corrupts a clear reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Dobbs, written by Alito and Breun written by Thomas are terrible decisions but the 4th estate “both sides” the arguments instead of making a solid judgement based on a plain reading of our Founding documents that these decisions eroded our Rights instead of enhanced them.
Charlie Kirk used God’s perfect law to attack gay people so you are in fact correct he died expressing his 1st Amendment right, but what he was advocating goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment and someone chose a 2nd Amendment solution to restore that balance. The Bill of Rights was written in the order that it was for a reason, but we Citizens get little education about that history today and rest assured that this SCOTUS is not going to help, only hurt our country.
The 2nd Amendment does NOT protect a right to murder, it is to protect the natural right to defense.
Charlie Kirk didn’t “attack” anyone, and Murder isn’t a Second Amendment “solution”.
Very twisted logic if one could even call it that.
Hitler did not “attack” any one either. He set up and infrastructure and articulated a philosophy that others carried out for him.
I find it interesting that you don’t know why the 2nd Amendment follows the 1st as they are written that way because our Founders understood why our country was formed. I have to assume you know that wars concerning religious differences were consuming Europe and that the crafting of the 1st Amendment is the result of those wars. The Founders knew that allowing religious superstitions to be incorporated into our laws was the road to religious persecution by the State, like the Taliban practice, and they also knew that restricting beliefs led to anarchy.
The Founders understood that tilting that balance the 1st Amendment struck would result in war and offered up the 2nd Amendment to ensure that all the combatants had equal access to weapons. In my opinion the SCOTUS and current President are tilting the balance of our laws towards Christian Nationalism which is causing some people to resort to a 2A solution. I am not choosing that path as I am interested in educating people about why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in the way that they were.
Again, murder has nothing to do with self defense\ second amendment.
Murder is a “solution” for evil psychopaths.