FBI Director Kash Patel's firearm remark on Alex Pretti's murder has stirred controversy over the Second Amendment.
Defending the ICE and Border Patrol, Patel said, "No one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines. That is not a peaceful protest, and you do not get to touch law enforcement. You do that anywhere, this FBI is going to be following — leading the charge to arrest those.”
Kash Patel: "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law." (Pretti was carrying a gun legally.) pic.twitter.com/EzGENVT26q— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 25, 2026
This remark contradicts the Second Amendment.
What is the Second Amendment?
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
How did netizens react?
However, after the controversy took a turn, Patel defended his statement, saying, "The FBI will always defend the First Amendment and the Second Amendment," but netizens raises question.
One of the users commented, "I've been a gun owner my entire adult life. The leaders of a political party that claims to care about the Second Amendment say that because Alex Pretti was carrying a firearm at a protest, he deserved to be executed."
If legally possessing a weapon can be used to justify your execution, then the Second Amendment is meaningless.If speaking in opposition to the regime can be used to justify your execution as a "terrorist," then the First Amendment is meaningless.
— Brett Meiselas (@BMeiselas) January 25, 2026
A user said, "If legally possessing a weapon can be used to justify your execution, then the Second Amendment is meaningless. If speaking in opposition to the regime can be used to justify your execution as a "terrorist," then the First Amendment is meaningless."
