JD Vance Mocks Liberal Attacking Kid Rock Over Violence Against Bud Light Cans [WATCH]

Vice President JD Vance responded sharply on social media Friday after a user attempted to link a viral video from the Bud Light controversy to claims of “violent rhetoric” from conservatives.

The exchange comes amid a wider debate over political rhetoric following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The incident began when a user referencing Kid Rock’s widely shared 2023 video — in which he shot cases of Bud Light in protest of the company’s marketing partnership with a transgender-identifying influencer — accused conservatives of promoting violence.

The account, which described its owner as a liberal U.S. Marine veteran, wrote: “This is how MAGA responded after Bud Lite had the audacity to feature a trans influencer in their ads. So spare us your bulls**t about violent rhetoric from the left, [JD Vance].”

This is how MAGA responded after Bud Lite had the audacity to feature a trans influencer in their ads.

So spare us your bullshit about violent rhetoric from the left, @JDVance. pic.twitter.com/TdTSvENypG

— JΛKΣ (@USMCLiberal) September 25, 2025

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Vice President Vance replied with a pointed response that quickly gained traction online.

“I call upon all of our supporters to stop the violence against innocent beer cans,” Vance wrote.

“And I call upon all left wing radicals to stop inciting violence against innocent people.”

I call upon all of our supporters to stop the violence against innocent beer cans.

And I call upon all left wing radicals to stop inciting violence against innocent people. https://t.co/j5VZ7AK8fx

— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 26, 2025

The vice president’s reply drew support from a number of conservative commentators and social media users, who contrasted the symbolic protest of damaging beer cans with acts of violence against individuals.

Activist Matt Van Swol wrote in response: “He shot cans. Not people. That’s the difference, dipst.” Another reply stated: “Fking moron doesn’t know the difference between shooting beer cans and people.”

I stand by my response to Jake here… pic.twitter.com/pdE2JHGvIe

— Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) September 26, 2025

One post summarized the distinction more broadly: “The right uses beer cans for target practice. The left uses people they disagree with. We are not the same. Carry on.”

Other users joined in with sarcasm and humor aimed at the original accusation.

“Yes, using an inanimate object for target practice is THE EXACT SAME THING as shooting a father to death in front of his family. You miserable moron,” one reply read.

Yes, using an inanimate object for target practice is THE EXACT SAME THING as shooting a father to death in front of his family.
You miserable moron. https://t.co/Uzk1DBjlfO

— LibertyJ (@LibertyJen) September 26, 2025

Another added: “You can pry these empty beer cans out of my cold, dead hands.”

You can pry these empty beer cans out of my cold, dead hands.

— unseen1 (@unseen1_unseen) September 26, 2025

One user joked that the Bud Light backlash had become traumatic for the beverage itself: “This led to so much uncalled for violence against beer cans. I saw one guy crush one with his foot. I’m still a mess from watching it. This has to stop.”

This led to so much uncalled for violence against beer cans. I saw one guy crush one with his foot. I’m still a mess from watching it. This has to stop.

— MAZE (@mazemoore) September 26, 2025

The online exchange comes during a period of heightened discussion over whether rhetoric contributes to political violence.

Following the killing of Charlie Kirk at a September 10 Turning Point USA event in Utah, some Democratic commentators have argued that rhetoric on both sides should be scrutinized.

Conservatives have pushed back, saying the comparison between symbolic protests and acts of violence is misleading.

Vice President Vance’s social media response adds to the conversation by drawing a clear distinction between political expression using inanimate objects and incidents of physical violence.

His remarks, along with the public responses they generated, highlight the continuing divide over how political speech and symbolism are interpreted in the current climate.