When Charlie Kirk was asked about the Second Amendment in April 2023, just days after the Nashville school shooting, he didn’t give a watered-down, politically safe answer. He spoke plainly, and what he said is now being ripped out of context in the wake of his assassination.

Gun-control activists, the media, and opportunistic politicians are seizing on fragments of his response, painting Kirk as an “extremist” who glorified gun deaths. But if you look at the full exchange, a different picture emerges—one of honesty, clarity, and a willingness to say what most politicians are too cowardly to admit.

The Full Question and Answer

The exchange began when a student asked:

“We saw the shooting that happened recently, and a lot of people are upset, but I’m seeing people argue for the other side, that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it’s important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?”

Charlie Kirk responded with a detailed explanation—far longer and deeper than the soundbites being pushed now:

So, I’m a big Second Amendment fan, but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician. Or maybe I would, I don’t know, but because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important.

The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government.

And if that talk scares you. If you think, “Wow, that’s radical. Charlie, I don’t know about that.” Well, then, you have not really read any of the literature of our founding fathers. Number two, you’ve not read any 20th-century history. You’re just living in Narnia. By the way, if you’re actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you’re living because CS Lewis was really smart.

So, I don’t know what alternative universe you’re living in. You just don’t want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical, and that people need the ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price. And that is part of liberty.

Driving comes with a price. 50,000. 50,000. 50,000 people die on the road every year.

That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving, speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, and services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.

So we need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen.

You can significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home.

By having more armed guards in front of schools.

We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel.

I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other god-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So then how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, “Oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings?”

I don’t know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That’s why.

How do we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports.

How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks.

How do we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there’s not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows. There’s all these guns because everyone’s armed.

If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?

TL;DR

• He reminded the audience that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even just personal defense. It exists, first and foremost, to protect citizens from tyrannical government.
• He noted that history—both the words of the Founding Fathers and the brutal lessons of the 20th century—makes that purpose undeniable.
• He was honest that liberty comes with a cost. Just as we accept tens of thousands of automobile deaths every year because society benefits from the freedom of mobility, there will sadly always be some gun deaths in a free nation.
• He stressed that the solution isn’t utopian bans, but realistic measures. Stronger families, armed guards at schools, and deterrence by a prepared citizenry.
• His closing point was powerful: “If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?”

Justice Scalia and the Heller Decision

Kirk’s framing of the Second Amendment wasn’t something he pulled out of thin air. It aligns with the Supreme Court’s most important modern ruling on the issue: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the individual, not just a “collective” militia.

The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Self-Defense

• Individual vs. Collective Right: Scalia’s opinion rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects militia service. He affirmed it protects every citizen’s individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.
• Resistance to Tyranny: Scalia acknowledged what the Framers feared most: governments disarming their people to consolidate power. The right to bear arms was recognized as a safeguard against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny.
• Historical Context: The Court noted that the Framers’ understanding of disarmament came from lived history—when rulers stripped arms from subjects to suppress resistance. The Second Amendment was written to ensure Americans would never be left defenseless in the face of government overreach.

Heller matters here because it echoes Kirk’s message: liberty carries risks, but the alternative—an unarmed populace at the mercy of government—is far worse.

How Gun-Control Advocates Are Misrepresenting Him

Since his assassination, gun-control advocates have latched onto one line: Kirk acknowledging that gun rights come with a “cost.” They spin it as if he celebrated or justified deaths. That’s dishonest.

What Kirk actually did was state a hard truth—that freedom itself is never without risk. No one accuses car manufacturers or highway engineers of endorsing 50,000 annual traffic deaths. We all understand those deaths are tragic but that eliminating cars entirely would cripple society. Kirk applied the same logic to firearms: disarming law-abiding citizens may lower certain statistics, but the tradeoff would be tyranny and helplessness. That’s a deal America cannot afford to make.

What the Killer Said—and Why It Matters

Adding to the hypocrisy, we now know what Kirk’s killer told his boyfriend in private messages. He admitted that he murdered Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” In other words, this wasn’t random—it was politically and ideologically motivated.

The same activists now weaponizing Kirk’s words are silent on the fact that his assassin admitted he acted out of hostility toward conservative, pro-gun speech. They demand crackdowns on law-abiding gun owners but refuse to confront the real issue: radicalized individuals targeting political opponents.

The Real Lesson

Charlie Kirk’s message wasn’t radical—it was rooted in American history and common sense. He didn’t glorify death; he reminded us that liberty comes at a price, and the alternative is worse. The Second Amendment isn’t a relic or a hobby clause—it’s the ultimate safeguard of every other right we hold dear.

Those twisting his words today aren’t interested in the truth. They’re interested in using his death to push an agenda he spent his life opposing.

Kirk’s words should be remembered in full, not distorted. He challenged Americans to reject utopian fantasies and face reality: evil exists, tyranny is always a threat, and only an armed citizenry can keep it in check.

And that’s why his voice matters even more today.