Quote of the Day
The people who scream the loudest about government tyranny have nothing to say. The same people who fantasize about standing up to federal overreach have vanished at the precise moment federal power killed a citizen exercising a constitutional right.
This is the tell.
We have seen this movement erupt before. When Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15 and killed two people, he was transformed into a cause. He was fundraised for, defended relentlessly, and held up as proof that armed citizens are the last line of order in a chaotic world. The weapon was the point, and the violence was excused. The narrative was protected at all costs.
But when a man lawfully carrying a firearm is tackled, disarmed, and shot anyway, there is no mobilization from the same crowd. The difference is not the gun. It is who the gun is allowed to protect.
Because the gun-rights movement has never actually been about freedom. It is about hierarchy and about who gets to feel powerful and in charge. It is about whose fear counts, and whose death does not.
Dead children are acceptable collateral. Dead immigrants are invisible. Dead Black and brown men are routine. And now, apparently, dead armed citizens are still not enough to stir outrage unless they fit the right political story.
Cassie McClure
January 31, 2026
Thoughts and prayers for the Second Amendment
The tell is that McClure left out the part where Alex Petti, who is never named in the article, committed a crime and was in the process of being arrested when he was disarmed and erroneously shot during the scuffle. A criminal getting shot by law enforcement during an arrest is much different than Rittenhouse who successfully defended himself against multiple criminals’ intent on killing or seriously injuring him.
The two situations are not analogous. It has nothing to do with the political affiliation, skin color, or immigration status. It has to do with whether the people involved were law-abiding or not.
The only thing clear in the article is McClure does not have a good grasp of reality and/or is being deliberately deceptive.
They are incapable of discerning the nuance of the situation.
Somebody who starts a fight vs somebody who finishes one.
He was actually committing a minimum of two (2) crimes at the time he died.
First, MN carry law states unequivocally that you MUST carry both your permit card AND your driver’s license when you are carrying a concealed firearm. He had NEITHER of these on his person, thus committing a misdemeanor crime.
Second, he was physically interfering with federal officers in the performance of their duty. Whether he personally likes the outcome of that duty or not is irrelevant; what IS relevant is that he was committing a felony crime.
Then she continues her nonsense spewing garbage about “dead children”, and “dead immigrants”. Who? Where? Under what circumstances? I’m actually a little surprised she didn’t try to continue the new left-wing myth that La Migra is targeting 5-year-old girls when what actually happened is that;
– The girl’s father dumped her and abandoned her in the middle of the street in a MN winter, and
– The girl’s mother wants absolutely nothing to do with her, also abandoning her, and
– Officers from ICE took the girl under their wing and did their best to keep her warm, safe, fed, and amused. Evil bastards, making those parents look like orcs.
I have read where several people mentioned he was not carrying his concealed carry license. But see that as, essentially, irrelevant in the case. At the time of the shooting, law enforcement was totally unaware of this, right? So, it could not be used as justification to detain or arrest him.
And that would be a violation of state law, which ICE and other federal agents are not tasked with knowing, let alone enforcing.
Totally separate jurisdictions.
I was attempting to contradict her statement about “…a man LAWFULLY carryiing…” when in fact he was NOT.
I regret that I was not clear.
I listened to an interesting podcast with Jim Bovard, who likened this incident to Ruby Ridge. I think that’s a bit much, but after listening to his understanding of the events, if he is correct, this was a faure of training and policy as well as stupidity on the part of the mob and governments. Gun restrictions should be opposed no matter who is involved and LEOs should be trained not to panic at the sight of one. I’m extremely skeptical of the excercise of government power even if it seems to be or is obviously directionally correct. I have no idea what really happened, it’s a tragedy all around, caused by the mess The Biden administration purposely left us with.
The cases for Alex Pretti and Kyle Rittenhouse are not at all the same. That’s one thing McClure isn’t seeing (or more probably, is well aware of but also knows her readers aren’t).
Both were armed, and both attended a protest that turned violent. That’s where the similarities end.
Rittenhouse shot three men who were trying to either seize his gun or assault him with weapons of their own — no law enforcement was involved — after he made multiple attempts to retreat and gave multiple verbal and non-verbal warnings, and was ultimately found to be acting in self-defense.
Pretti attempted to physically intervene in law enforcement officers performing their duties, got into a physical altercation with those officers as they tried to (legally) arrest him for it, and got shot after they discovered he was armed. (Is he entirely to blame? I’d say no, there’s a solid case to be made that at least one of the ICE agents “jumped the gun” in shooting, but the agents probably aren’t entirely to blame, either.)
Rittenhouse made every attempt to avoid conflict and shot criminal assailants. Pretti intentionally escalated conflict and scuffled with law enforcement officers.
The two are not the same and cannot be reasonably compared. Not that that stops disingenuous (if I’m being polite) people like McClure.
“….and LEOs should be trained not to panic at the sight of one…”
As a general rule, they don’t. They do, however, consider the possibility of a gun being a potential threat because “managing threats” and “preventing threats from manifesting into actual negative actions” are in their job description, and the demeanor and actions of whomever is carrying the gun figure into that heavily.
If someone is standing quietly and watching even openly carried holstered firearms usually don’t receive much more than attentive observation; when, however, the carrier is screaming at you, kicking parts off the car you’re in and physically interfering with carrying out your job, that information goes into the decision matrix and ups the possibility the gun, if one is present, may be used in a negative manner from “possibility” to “maybe a probability” and that determines how police respond to it, and the person possessing it. It’s significant that upon discovery of the firearm the first intent was to gain control over it and then proceed from there; that the individual possessing the firearm was physically resisting at the time; had the resistance, and prior physically violent action not occurred, I doubt the mere possession of a gun would have been an issue at all, at least not until – and if – subsequent execution of custodial action (meaning an arrest and application of restraints) occurred.
“Don’t do none, won’t be none” comes immediately to mind, as does John Farnam’s Rule of Four Stupids. Unfortunately, there seems to be a substantial surplus of people who do not understand the concept, and gravity, of crossing a threshold.
As for whether or not possession oif a firearm at that place and time was lawful, that’s pretty much an “angels dancing on the head of a pin” issue – pretty irrelevant. For those of us who subscribe to the philosophy of “shall not be infringed” the only thing that should have mattered was demonstrated intent followed by action, not mere possession, and one does have to question the intent, and wisdom, of becoming directly involved physically in such a confrontation, whether armed or unarmed; when the issue was “citizen protestors and demonstrators” vs “armed government agents enforcing federal law;” to what end was the possession of a firearm considered necessary? Against whom, or what, was it to be used, and under what circumstances or provocations would it be brought into play? I doubt the whistling overweight blue hairs were much of a threat to anyone, and it’s unlikely the local criminal element would choose an area heavily populated by government law enforcement agents as the optimum venue to practice their trade. Who does that leave to complete the equation?
So, just the completely factual, non-opinion-in-any-way inaccuracies that I can pick out from a casual reading:
1) “The same people who fantasize about standing up to federal overreach have vanished at the precise moment federal power killed a citizen exercising a constitutional right.” Interfering with law enforcement when they are legally doing their job is not “exercising a constitutional right”.
2) “When Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15” He did not cross the state line with the AR. (The guy who pointed a gun AT him crossed a state line with that gun, which he had illegally since he was a felon, but somehow, that never matters to people like this.)
3) “But when a man lawfully carrying a firearm” He was not “lawfully carrying”, as has been established multiple times around here (and plenty of other places).
There are plenty of other deceits and inaccuracies, those are just the boring, basic-facts ones. Her points lie directly on direct, obvious lies, and then she stacks it with double-standards, deceit, and projection of the left’s own BS (her last paragraph is pure, unadulterated projection).
Too common to really be outraged about, but definitely tiresome, deceitful BS.