Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Sure thing.
1) "Stoning gays" is meant to imply Kirk's prescription for dealing with homosexuality - when in reality he was critiquing Ms Rachel's argument for using Leviticus for her reason to support Pride month, highlighting her cherry picked verse with another that would contradict her interpretation. It's an internal critique not an endorsement of copying ancient Jewish Levitical law for the US in modernity.
2) "Shooting migrants" uses a purposefully vague term of "migrant" which may put an image of border patrol opening fire on a family escaping persecution and seeking asylum in the mind of the layman. There are legal channels for anyone seeking asylum in the US, he's referring to backing up the enforcement for illegal entry with lethal means if necessary to quell the invasion of mostly fighting age men breaking our laws. Nowhere in here did he say it would even be a first measure, and certainly not for those respecting our laws. Even a routine traffic stop of a speeding citizen is backed up with lethal force if it escalates or the driver refuses to cooperate - a citizen can't drive off or refuse to hand over identification and have the cop say, "Oh well, I guess you don't get a ticket today because you don't want one."
3) "Children watching executions" was referring to the public display of legal executions and at what age someone should be able to see them, and his co-host Blake Neff suggested 12 as the beginning age since that was the age he thought people are capable of understanding what they're seeing. There is historical precedence as early American settlers all the way to the early 20th century had public executions where families were in attendance with their young children. Last one was 1936 I believe. They were talking about the good that would come from a return to public executions so that the community could be reminded of what happens when criminals prey on the innocent in the most horrific ways.
From a Newsweek article on the quote:
In response, Kirk said, "I think it should be taken in a holy way and I don't mean holy in a bad way, I mean that this is heavy.
In addition, Kirk asked whether crime would go up or down if children were to watch public executions, "Here's a question for anyone that might be not persuaded. Would crime go up or down?"
Bowyer said, "It would go way down," with Kirk then asking, "So why is this even a question?"
4) "Buy more guns" being listed here is intended to convey incredulity because YourAnonNews assumes that fewer guns will reduce murder. However under the Obama administration they found that guns prevent anywhere from 500,000 to 3,000,000 deaths each year. This far exceeds the deadliest years for gun deaths (most of which are suicides, something that doesn't threaten the lives of other people who aren't pulling the trigger). In short, guns save far more lives than they take, and virtually all mass shootings occur in areas with strict gun laws because it takes longer to stop a shooter when fewer people are armed which leads to higher casualties.
5) "Bring guns to public places" follows the previous point, as buying more guns would be less useful for public safety if everyone kept their guns locked up at home all the time.
6) "Carry guns in case of attack" is also the same point.
7) "Deep State may take Biden out" was a prediction Kirk made that basically came true. Here's what he said from that episode:
"There is no competitive Republican primary. They’re terrified the Republican base in consolidating. The immigration thing is failing. The inflation thing is failing. There is going to be an attempt to take out Joe Biden. To take him out first like Richard Nixon, and maybe if they have to do the JFK thing they will. I don’t even know if that’s a thing, but, we’ll see."
Biden was doing poorly in polls and health at the time, and Charlie was thinking the Democrats couldn't continue endorsing Biden if they wanted to keep the White House in 2024. Nearly a year later, Biden was still insisting he wasn't dropping out. After the debates with Trump, Kamala was the new candidate without a single primary vote. No one voted for her in the primaries because she couldn't make it, but the Democrats insisted on her anyway. They "took out" Biden without shedding blood in a similar way to taking out Nixon with the Watergate scandal.
8) "Biden deserves prison or death" is not as extreme as people may think. People have been justly imprisoned and even executed for lesser crimes. Here's the quote:
"Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia filled, Alzheimer's, corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and or given the death penalty for his crimes against America."
Joe Biden admitted on camera to having done the very thing that they impeached Trump for the first time, quid pro quo. The then vice president Biden during the second Obama term, someone who didn't have the same power as Obama, threated to withhold congressionally approved funds (arguably something that the president himself cannot do, let alone the vice president) unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into Burisma Holdings, where his son Hunter was on the board. His son was never a citizen of Ukraine, he didn't speak the language, and had no experience with anything related to energy (Burisma Holdings dealt with energy exploration/production). There are also texts that show that Hunter was sitting next to his father Joe while extorting foreign leaders and businessmen and shaking them down for money using the family name, and even mentioned his father being a part of it and allocating 10% of what they received for "the big guy" who close family friends say referred to Joe. This was after Biden denied having any knowledge of his son's business dealings, and this contrasts having dinner with this son's foreign business partners. Biden said it had nothing to do with business.
9) "Mass Shootings are the price of freedom" is a perfectly reasonable assessment that in other contexts is held by most liberals. There are roughly as many vehicle deaths every year as there are gun deaths in the US, but virtually no liberals are seriously advocating for fewer cars in order to prevent vehicular deaths despite car ownership not being an explicit Constitutional right. Logically, it can be said that there is wide non-partisan consensus that inevitable vehicular deaths are the price of fast travel and movement of products being widely available. The butchered quote is meant to paint Charlie as uncaring and cold, making guns out to be akin to a small hobby that kills tons of people instead of him pointing out that it's a "prudent" deal for the security of a free state. This also applies to owning a backyard pool - liberals are not advocating for a complete ban on pools in people's backyards even though hundreds of children drown in pools every year. The cost of hundreds of children drowning to death is acceptable to everyone who supports the ability for people to own pools in their backyard, even if they don't see it that way. It's the tough, logical conclusion of their support, and this is true despite pool ownership also not being Constitutionally protected.
10) "Charlie Kirk flustered after supporter asks when do we get to use guns" I'm not sure what this is referring to, as the only quote I can recall from this is not from Kirk, but from "pragmatic Liberal" Nicholas Decker, who on April 16th 2025 published an article on his Substack with the following title:
When Must We Kill Them?
Evil has come to America.
This may be the most egregious and lazy inclusion of this post, as it was a liberal journalist explicitly looking for a time when killing would be allowed in retaliation against one's political opposition. It wasn't even a cautious reminder to be vigil and stay armed should something dramatic happen, it was almost desperate in looking for a justification to explicitly kill their enemies, and even worse the "enemy" is not clearly defined. Even with the most charitable interpretation, it is rhetoric that is no less dangerous than anything Kirk has said, so it makes no sense to single him out (and without even quoting him). This is a disingenuous and careless listing, meant to make the uninformed reader assume that a flustered and hotheaded Kirk was frustrated at a lack of kill orders from his political superiors.
11) "Charlie Kirk hails border agents for abusing migrants" refers to the reaction of an infamous image of a border official on horseback that was allegedly whipping a migrant. This turned out to be false, and they were holding reigns, not a whip. The liberal media outlets published false headlines saying the migrants were being whipped and therefore abused. Charlie countered this narrative of "excessive force" by making the case that strong enforcement of the border was justified, and is consistent with his views that should it come to that, they have a duty to backup their force with lethal means. If citizens are breaking the law and resist arrest, they are met with escalating force up to and including lethal means. This is no different at the border, and is a reasonable assessment if one is honest. Someone illegally crossing who immediately surrenders themselves to the authorities has no reasonable expectation of being killed or abused by border officials, and there is no evidence that Kirk or his followers would have supported that anyway.
English
