Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for his political rhetoric. No one does. And yet the rhetoric that fuels violence, and the violence that fuels rhetoric is rapidly taking this country over the edge. How do we stop the cycle, when so many jurisdictions in this country won’t allow anyone to do something about the guns? For many, the remaining logical target is the speech. But should it be?

Many Republican lawmakers this week said that Charlie Kirk was killed because the media and Democrats refer to Republicans as fascist and enemies of the state. The implication is to curb that speech. They make this claim while conveniently forgetting that Mr. Trump says those who oppose his policy choices and his disregard for the separation of powers are “the enemy within.” Language choices are apparently only a one-way issue.  Of course the crucial distinction is that words by themselves are not the problem. What people do with those words is.

Some time ago,  during an election year, a friend of mine bemoaned the wisdom of certain components of the First Amendment, saying  “Words can do so much damage. Why should anyone be able to say what they want, when so much pain can be attached to their words? We already have libel, slander, yelling fire in the crowded theater as things we can’t do. Why can’t there be more restrictions on speech?”

As a writer, we both knew there was only so far she was going to get with me in this line of reasoning. I don’t believe in regulating speech anymore than it already is, but I’m all for someone doing something about algorithms. Young, white men radicalized in chat rooms seem to be blowing up this country faster than the administration’s unconstitutional actions. Who do we see about that?

Though conservatives, including the president of the United States, are blaming the radical left for the murder of Charlie Kirk, his alleged killer did not come from a left-wing liberal household. He did not live in a left-wing liberal state. He lived online.

Additionally, it was easy for a young member of a Mormon, Trump-supporting family to legally obtain a gun. That’s the other thing that requires some national introspection. Are we as a nation ever going to do something about the gun scourge?

There are no immediate solutions for the violence-supportive echo chambers on social media platforms or for the easy access to firearms. But it is worth noting that there is a solution to acceptance of changing the best democracy of the modern era into an authoritarian state. To quote a Republican: Just Say No.

The fears of many people now – particularly members of Congress with a high public profile – is that Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the 21^st century attack from Fort Sumter. As such, preserving the Union this time requires finding nicer ways to express our opposition to much of what Charlie Kirk stood for. While there is never an argument against civility, if one believes something is indefensible, then it is, well…indefensible. What is the nice way to handle that fact in one’s choice of words?

Charlie Kirk should not have been murdered. Period. That said, the tragic act of a misguided youth who was radicalized by online culture and memes should not obscure, for even a moment, a simple fact that existed before the fatal gunshot. The current administration and rubber-stamping Republicans in Congress are pulling the foundation of our constitutional republic out at the roots, with neither an end in sight nor an eye to replanting. And rhetoric has nothing to do with it.