Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Let’s take a moment to applaud the stunning logic swirling around the aftermath of the Alex Pretti shooting — because nothing says “we love the Constitution” quite like arguing that you’re totally allowed to carry a gun… as long as the federal government doesn’t mind shooting you first for doing it.

Yes, that’s right: Alex Pretti — a licensed concealed-carry permit holder in Minnesota — showed up with a holstered firearm at a spontaneous confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis. That’s entirely legal under Minnesota law and the Second Amendment. It was on his hip the whole time. Video footage shows him holding his phone when the escalation started — not brandishing, not threatening, not trying to shoot anyone. 

But hold on: because once a federal agent wrestled him to the pavement, snatched that holstered gun off his body, and then emptied a magazine into him — all while he was down — the official line magically changed to:

“Well, he had a gun!” “You simply cannot bring a firearm to a protest!” “Also, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply in this context!”

This is the intellectual gymnastics where decades of professed devotion to the right to bear arms go to nap. It’s like watching someone in a bumper car proudly proclaim they love driving, as soon as someone else t-boned them. 

It gets better. Suddenly after Pretti is killed — shot at point-blank range by a Border Patrol agent — the same voices that once cheered for armed protesters in other cities are now lecturing: “Oh dear, maybe you should have left that gun at home.” That’s rich. Because just a few years ago we had Kyle Rittenhouse, who literally did brandish and fire his weapon, killing people in the process — and was cheered and legally vindicated by many of these same commentators precisely because he exercised his Second Amendment rights. So let me get this straight:

Brandishing and using a gun to kill people = fine. Carrying a gun lawfully on your hip without ever drawing it = unforgivable, and also justification for deadly force by federal agents.

What sorcery is this? By that logic, the Second Amendment is now the Second Suggestion. You can have it… unless the government in question doesn’t like your political position, the shirt you’re wearing, or whether Fox News thinks you’re on the “right” side of an issue this week.

Let’s be clear: Carrying a firearm lawfully — including at a protest — is constitutionally protected. The mere presence of a gun does not justify being executed by federal agents. Lawful possession doesn’t suddenly evaporate because someone decides you look like trouble. And deadly force isn’t endorsed by the Constitution just because someone’s Sense of Decorum™ gets ruffled. 

But here we are: the defenders of the Second Amendment scream bloody murder when the government suggests restrictions on guns, yet when the government itself pulls the trigger on someone for exercising that very right, the response is… what, exactly?

“Don’t bring your gun to a protest”?

“Maybe just leave the Constitution at home next time”?

This isn’t reasoning. It’s professional unseriousness masquerading as principles.