Think about all the ways you've seen people with firearms described by the media. Even if they had no negative intentions, they're typically vilified by the news reports, making groups of gun rights supporters out to be armed militias interested in taking over and creating The Handmaid's Tale or something.
But Molotov Cocktails are different, it seems.
Remember that these are firebombs. They're not anything for self-defense. They're weapons of terror.
And yet, as noted at The Federalist, the media is more than willing to downplay them.
The Washington Post dubbed the 41-year-old New Jersey man arrested for alleged intent to “kidnap or injure” outside of a judiciary-themed Catholic mass traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices a mere “demonstrator.”
This is the headline the Washington Post chose to describe the arrest of a man who allegedly brought a Molotov cocktail and other explosives to St. Matthew's Cathedral.
— Elle Reynolds Purnell (@_ellepurnell) October 6, 2025
You don't hate the media enough. pic.twitter.com/X6tOEg1K8jLouis Geri was not simply a protester who set up camp on the steps of the Washington, D.C., Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle ahead of the special “Red Mass” service dedicated to kicking off the judicial year. According to authorities, he was a repeat offender of a premises ban who was found with suspicious materials, including “vials of liquid and possible fireworks.”
Investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal team and Arson Task Force following Geri’s arrest yielded at least one Molotov cocktail, an incendiary weapon often described and treated by law enforcement as a “crude bomb,” tucked away in his belongings.
The discovery not only prompted law enforcement to charge Geri with “unlawful entry” for violating the premises ban and “possession of a Molotov cocktail,” but also “threats to kidnap or injure.”
As the news developed, WaPo debuted an updated version of the same headline, which further downplayed Geri’s plot and arrest by referring to him as a mere “man with a tent.” In the text of the article, WaPo emphasized that “it was not clear why the man was at the cathedral, why he had the items, or why police thought he had a Molotov cocktail, a type of firebomb.”
Somehow, I bet a group openly carrying firearms, even within the confines of the law, would get just "fair" treatment by the Washington Post reporters.
No matter how much you hate the media, you cannot hate them enough. To do so would cause one to spontaneously combust.
This is the same Washington Post that has made it a mission to destroy the Second Amendment in this country. This is the same Washington Post that published the photos of mass shooting victims to try to prompt Congress to pass gun control.
Now, they're downplaying a Molotov cocktail, all because they like what they think this guy's politics are.
To call this disgusting is way too mild an adjective. I get that they're not calling him guilty because that opens up lawsuits, and I honestly don't know if he's guilty or not, but the differences in how they address things here are fascinating.
Again, this is a kind of improvised weapon with little self-defense value. Under the Second Amendment, these should be permissible, mind you, but they're not under the laws of the land at the moment. The fact that this guy allegedly had one is a big red flag and something that the Washington Post would have been all over if he were on the right and had a handgun, even with a valid concealed carry permit.
So guns are bad, firebombs are good.
Gotcha, Washington Post.
