Charlie Kirk's assassination is a seminal moment in American history, akin to the JFK assassination, for one reason: everyone saw it. And everyone who witnessed it had an immediate reaction. It's an event that requires a response, and what you decide to do informs everyone of your internal morality.

Laura Perkins was particularly on point with this writing. "I wasn't this shaken when they tried to assassinate President Trump. Presidential assassinations are awful but have happened in the United States. But to murder in cold blood a man involved in politics ... described him was shocking. The next ones in line are the voters. Think about that."

The alleged assassin was unfazed by the whole affair. Leaked messages he sent in the aftermath of the shooting show him joking about it in private Discord groups.

It is crazy that the assassin's reaction to what he did is being matched by too many liberals, both in my life and in the lives of everyone I meet. On the one hand, we can read in outlets from The New York Times to Jacobin that the assassination was bad.

On the one hand, those outlets paved the road to help us reach the point where it is commonplace for your average Democrat voter to refer to all Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians as Nazis, fascists, and existential threats to the Republic. The shooter's language matches what has become the standard language of the left.

The Associated Press complained about this in the aftermath of the shooting in a piece headlined, "Graphic video of Kirk shooting was everywhere online, showing how media gatekeeper role has changed." They wanted to keep the video from the public, but instead, it spread like wildfire.

Everyone saw what happened. And everyone reacted. Unfortunately, for too many normal people, they learned that their family, friends, work colleagues, childhood friends, and church leaders openly supported the assassination, or blamed Kirk for getting shot. And if they didn't do that, they were mysteriously silent, after spending years speaking out about everything.

The same people who told you "silence is violence" suddenly went silent as a political assassination rocked the country's conscience. The "silence is violence" line was always garbage. You can call it cowardice, but only violence is violence.

The broader problem is the loud ones, though. People are openly doing one of two things. They either blamed Charlie Kirk for what happened or were fine with the assassination as is because "punching Nazis is good." Or as one friend told me, she'd been told we needed more events like Charlie Kirk.

If you have a functioning soul, any of the above responses is barbaric and pure evil. You can forget the hypocrisy of liberals claiming to be tolerant of anyone and anything. The moral superiority of declaring everyone else aside from themselves as depraved sets the moral framework for them to approve of death.

Charlie Kirk was not a Nazi, white supremacist, or a radical of any kind. He was a hyperactive political activist who worked on college campuses. The debate events he set up are not a new phenomenon; these events have been a staple of conservative outreach for decades.

In conservative legal circles, we have The Federalist Society, which engages in formal debate on campuses with people on the other side of issues. Those formal debates often get the same treatment and vitriol as what Charlie Kirk routinely experienced. The notion that Kirk brought this on himself is ludicrous, from people bizarrely claiming words are violence.

When you put all this together, there's one unfortunate conclusion: if you hold beliefs in the same realm as Charlie Kirk, it is now mainstream for the left and its advocates to dehumanize you as a Nazi, white supremacist, and more. That dehumanization then gives an affirmative moral framework to assassinations like Charlie Kirk.

What everyone I've talked to has concluded is the same: they have friends, family members, neighbors, and more who would be fine if they got killed for their political beliefs. It sounds harsh, but that's the only conclusion you can make when you're cheering or making excuses for the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Some have taken that a step further by mocking Kirk's death, and continuing to do the same with his widow's speech afterwards. In these actions, we learn the truth: there's no tolerance, love of one's country or fellow man, or anything noble in these hearts.

The only thing they have left is pure, unadulterated rage and hatred of their friends and neighbors. And if you believe something that opposes them, they will cheer your death.

It's not true of everyone, of course. Charlie Kirk's assassination is a test every nation receives over time. It's a pass or fail test. If you can't pass this test, Americans are under no obligation to take your claims, demands, and ideas seriously.

If you're failing this test and cheer your neighbors being killed for their political or religious beliefs, don't be surprised if those same neighbors no longer come to your aid when disasters befall society. Why help someone who wants you dead?

I have a long-term concern about this trend, because this is the true path to an insurmountable divide in the country. When you'd prefer your opponents, who are your neighbors, to be dead, it's a dangerous precipice. Abraham Lincoln was correct in saying a nation divided against itself cannot stand.