Guns for me, but not for thee
How the Rittenhouse Rules changed the Second Amendment.
Public Notice is supported by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️
I screwed up on January 6.
Like tens of millions of Americans, I sat in front of my television set aghast, watching in horror as thousands of rabid MAGA supporters crashed through barriers, broke down doors, shattered windows, and beat and pepper-sprayed US Capitol officers and metro police here in Washington DC, where I’ve lived for 25 years.
What I should have done is take matters into my own hands. But, alas, I was unfamiliar with the new “Rittenhouse Rules.”
As we learned in the wake of last month’s murder in Minneapolis of Alex Pretti by Department of Homeland Security agents, Second Amendment rights are quite malleable, applied selectively and depending upon one’s politics.
Conservative gun owners, for example, don’t merely have a right to own and carry guns. Nor is their right bound by the need to protect themselves, their family, and property, or to “stand their ground” in public if threatened. Thanks to the Rittenhouse Rules, their gun rights include the power to appoint themselves vigilantes.
Kyle Rittenouse, of course, was the 17-year-old from Illinois who, in August 2020, crossed state lines into Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15. Believing himself deputized to protect private property he did not even own, he shot two people, claiming later at his trial that his actions were justified because he feared for his life. He was exonerated.
Apparently, Rittenhouse unwittingly created a new standard: If there’s violence, or merely unrest or property threats somewhere — and even if that unrest is unfolding far from your home, school, workplace, or other space you normally occupy — the Second Amendment empowers you to insert yourself into that situation as a self-deputized member of a one-person citizen law enforcement militia.
Heck, the unrest can even be occurring in a neighboring state. Although supposed “states’ rights” advocates know full well that neighboring state troopers would be required to gain permission before crossing state lines to perform their duties, apparently regular citizens can do whatever they want with impunity.
Well, if those citizens are conservative, that is. If liberals want to stay alive, as we heard countless conservative commentators say in recent weeks, they should stay home or whatever happens to them is their own fault.
Conservatives, on the other hand, can launch themselves into the breach and be hailed as courageous heroes worthy of private photo-ops with the president.
Which is why I regret my inaction on January 6, 2021.
Some exceptions apply
Blithely unaware of the new Rittenhouse standard, I foolishly sat on my couch, watching with rising fury as 2020 election loser Donald Trump’s violent MAGA mob attacked the US Capitol.
Within an hour of the attack beginning, it was clear from live television feeds that law enforcement officers were overwhelmed. Crimes, including both property and violent ones, were being committed a little more than a mile from my home.
Evidently, what I should have done is grabbed an AR-15, marched over to the Capitol — a distance shorter than Rittenhouse’s car ride to Kenosha — and, as a DC resident whose taxes pay the salaries of the Metro police being assaulted, began shouting at those domestic terrorists to stop. (Anyone who thinks the “domestic terrorist” label is hyperbole should consult the federal code where it is defined; the actions of the J6ers easily meet all three criteria delineated in 18 USC 2331, Section 5a-c.)
If the J6 terrorists refused, or if they intimidated, threatened, or otherwise made me feel unsafe in any way, according to the Rittenhouse Rules I would be empowered to open fire, even if they did not shoot at me first.
But again, only if I were a conservative.
People of every ideological persuasion should be offended that Donald Trump in 2020 suggested to his advisers that the government shoot George Floyd protestors in the legs to cripple and deter them, and that he authorized the US government to award January 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt’s family $5 million for her “wrongful” death.
Cooler heads ultimately prevailed over Trump in 2020. But the juxtaposition of his maniacal suggestion for how to handle protestors he hates, coupled with his rewarding of felonious protestors with pardons and payouts to supporters like Babbitt’s family, reveals something far more sinister: That conservatives and Republicans selectively and self-servingly interpret Second Amendment rights.
The responses from gun-rights groups in the immediate aftermath of Pretti’s murder were the first tell.
The Gun Owners of America (GOA), a Second Amendment group lesser-known but more virulent than the National Rifle Association (NRA), released a statement that pays lip service to the Second Amendment but tries to both-sides Pretti’s murder.
“The Left must stop antagonizing ICE and CBP agents who are taking criminals off the streets and play a crucial role in protecting communities and upholding the rule of law,” it says.
The more prominent but increasingly beleaguered NRA also hedged by saying “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
Notice that the NRA didn’t criticize the federal agents. They didn’t call them jack-booted thugs or tyrannical goons. Nor did the NRA or GOA specifically dare to blame Trump, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, or Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino for their profound failure to act as “responsible voices” by slandering Pretti within hours of his death.
In the United States in 2023, 47,000 people died from gun-related deaths, or roughly 129 people per day. Although the majority of gun deaths are suicides and a smaller but harrowing share are accidental, roughly 37 percent die in gun murders, one percent of which involve mass shootings. (I’ll save readers the utterly depressing statistics related to K-12 school shootings and deaths.)
All of this bloodshed is justified by 2A absolutists because, as they have claimed for decades, citizens need guns to protect themselves against government tyranny. That bogus justification was also exposed by CBP’s murder of Alex Pretti. Among the most widely-circulated “stories” published by the satirical website The Shovel is one titled, “NRA Accidentally Forgets To Rise Up Against Tyrannical Government.”
That headline is good for a chuckle, but like most satire it contains more than a kernel of truth. The reason for GOA’s and the NRA’s tepid critiques of DHS’s killing of Pretti is that it’s this government, their government — a conservative Republican administration led by Trump, who boasted repeatedly during his campaigns about his defense of the Second Amendment.
The gun groups can’t risk condemning the politicians who have worked assiduously for decades to weaken gun regulations, all so another 129 Americans can die today to protect gun owners against tyranny they apparently happily support so long as that oppression is delivered unto liberals in service to conservative agendas.
The second tell was the response by top Republican politicians. After Pretti’s murder, Trump said, “Listen, you can’t just walk in with guns.” (On cue, he later demonstrated his patented, sick narcissism by musing aloud that he was more upset by ICE’s killing of Renee Good two weeks earlier because Good’s parents are Republicans who “love Trump.”)
Noem and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went further, saying protestors should only bring signs, not guns, to public protests. It took all of five minutes for social media to explode with pictures of heavily-armed conservative groups assembled to protest at state Capitols and other public spaces. Images of the right-wing Bundy clan and its arsenal were in vogue anew.
All of this confirms that Republicans are more than mere hypocrites. Rather, they believe Second Amendment rights are, like the rest of the Constitution, subject to Wilhoit’s maxim — that conservatism is based on a single proposition, which is that laws are designed to protect some (conservatives) but bind others (everyone else).
The proto-fascist police state
Kyle Rittenhouse left one final legacy.
Second Amendment absolutists pretend to ignore the amendment’s preamble language: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … ” As a practice and rhetorical strategy, the National Rifle Association avoids mentioning this conditional language more than vigils for school shooting victims.
But the new Rittenhouse Rules may change that, forcing 2A advocates to embrace the militia clause — but, again, selectively. Because so long as the “well regulated” part is shunted, a conservative gun owner can instantly become a one-man militia by mere self-appointment.
Alex Pretti’s death was sickening to anyone with two eyes, two ears, half a brain, and a heart. (Not you, Megyn.) And the immediate, coordinated attempts by DHS leaders and their media allies to slander a dead nurse who helped wounded and sick military veterans were revolting, literally and metaphorically. But the larger lesson of Pretti’s murder is that when it comes to guns and gun rights, most defenders of Trump’s proto-fascist police state clearly believe the Second Amendment exists to protect conservatives but bind liberals.
Or, when necessary, kill them when they’re on the ground, unarmed, on all fours.
That’s it for today
We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription.
Thanks for reading, and for your support.
“…against tyranny they apparently happily support so long as that oppression is delivered unto liberals in service to WHITE SUPREMACY.” Fixed it for you.
Rittenhouse first killed someone. The two guys he shot next were trying to stop him. The judge was completely biased. I am from the county next to Kenosha. Watched the whole thing.