Quote of the Day
At the same time, many anti-gun stalwarts were falling all over themselves to advance arguments that, in any other circumstance, would remain alien. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, submitted waspishly that “the Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” Anti-gun rights groups joined the fray. The Giffords campaign argued that Pretti was “a lawful gun owner who was protesting in his community” and “had the right to be there,” and the Brady campaign asserted that he was “a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit.” At what point, one must ask, did they all turn into Wayne LaPierre?
…
one has to laugh. At present, Gavin Newsom is literally attempting to repeal the Second Amendment, and, in 2023, he signed a bill in California that barred guns from being carried in “sensitive places,” including at protests. (Minnesota has considered a similar law, and, in 2024, the state filed an amicus brief arguing that there is no Second Amendment right to carry guns at “events involving political speech, like political rallies and protests,” because they are “often targets of violence.”) The Giffords campaign wishes to ban the type of firearm that Pretti was carrying on the grounds that it represents “a threat to society” and is “designed to kill large numbers of people quickly,” and it holds the official view that “guns at protests” are not protected by the Constitution because carrying them “chills the exercise of our fundamental freedoms.” The Brady campaign agrees with this, proposing that Americans “do not need a loaded gun to peacefully protest” and should not be allowed to carry one.
The Editors, Nation Review
January 27, 2026
Alex Pretti Shooting: Second Amendment Supporters, Gun Control Advocates Switch Roles | National Review
It appears as if the Republicans started it with saying stupid stuff about Petti committed a crime by protesting ICE activity while carrying a firearm. I have to wonder if it was a coordinated effort to demonstrate the Democrats will take the opposite side of whatever the Republicans says.
After a few seconds of thought, no. I do not think they are smart or coordinated enough to pull that off. I think it is more likely they started it off by vomiting out the first thing that came to mind when it was discovered Petti was carrying a gun when he was killed. “Democrat with a gun? I’m opposed to Democrats. I am on the side of law and order he must have done something illegal…”
I think the Republicans were doing what they usually accusing Democrats of doing. Taking the opposite side of their political opponents no matter how stupid it is to do so.
Politicians have crap for brains.
I guess the saving grace is that it wasn’t ALL Republicans denouncing Pretti for “carrying a gun at a protest”, it was just a few, high level ones, that probably aren’t overly strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and they were quickly taken to task for their comments from other places on the right.
The lefties, on the other hand, change their talking points by the day with no mention of it or pushback from their compatriots…because their compatriots know full well it’s nothing more than a tactic, not a genuine expression of beliefs.
True on both points.
The left doubles down on their stupid and/or evil.
Kash Patel claimed in an interview that he was subjected to misleading editing — that he actually objected to carrying a gun at a demonstration when you intend to incite violence, or something along those lines. If he actually said that, he’s not quite so wrong. Not exactly right either; the issue is not the carrying of the gun but the incitement of violence, which is equally problematic if done while not carrying.
My observation is that carrying is protected by the Constitution but his agency is nowhere to be found in that document.
“Not exactly right either; the issue is not the carrying of the gun but the incitement of violence, which is equally problematic if done while not carrying.”
No, I would say it’s worse while armed – you are inciting violence while equipped to commit greater violence than if you weren’t armed.
Inciting violence while unarmed is still bad, but “a friendly tavern brawl” is a thing in some places (or used to be until quite recently), so unarmed violence simply isn’t as big a deal, factually speaking, as armed violence.
A different way to look at it is that inciting violence and then *using* a weapon to make it worse is the problem. If you (a) incite violence and (b) carry a weapon, (a) is the crime and (b), if that weapon wasn’t used, is irrelevant.
Pushing actions, not capability that is not acted on.
I think it was simply the knee jerk “our officer’s did nothng wrong” response and the casting of blame; more “Thin Blue Line” and less “Gun’s Are Bad”.
“Politicians have crap for brains.”
Crap has hired a lawyer who will be putting you on notice shortly for the libel suit for that horrendously insulting statement.
Supposedly, Ben and Jerry’s has announced a flavor to commemorate Pretti.
There’s no ice, capsicum flavored, and it’s got chunks of government vehicle tail light mixed in.
Perhaps 1980’s liberals are today what passes for conservatives?
They certainly act like it.
Or perhaps it’s just all a controlled demolition of Christian western world?
And since it’s the other sides turn on the podium. Government agents are just killing the other “side” now?
Truth is being shown that government kills whomever it wants. And tells any lie it wants to cover it up.
And none of them want you armed. Or able to fight back even in the slightest manner.
And Tom Homan’s army today, could just as easily be Hillary Clinton’s tomorrow.
“Politicians have crap for brains.” By design.
Plan accordingly.