Kyle Rittenhouse made a name for himself by defending himself from a mob that was clearly bent on murdering him. He fired four shots, killed two convicted felons, and injured a third who was pointing a gun at him. Not a bad night's work.
He was then forced to endure a ridiculous trial that was more about politics than the law, and deal with an entire segment of people who think he's racist because he shot black people, even though everyone he shot was white.
To say that it shaped him to some degree is putting it mildly. Instead of just living the normal life of a young man, he was thrust into the national spotlight as a teen. He stepped away for a bit, but then came back, and his latest move since his return?
Saying Jeanine Pirro should be fired.
Kyle Rittenhouse on Tuesday called for U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro to be fired after threatening to jail anyone who brings a gun into the district.
“Pirro should be fired. There is NO REASON a U.S. Attorney should take such a blatantly unconstitutional stance,” he wrote in a post on X.
During a Monday appearance on Fox News, Pirro said she was cracking down on illegal gun possession in the nation’s capital.
...Rittenhouse later chimed in on pushback from people who defended Pirro’s remarks by posting a full clip of her interview, with the caption, “In full context, everything she said was entirely WRONG and retarded.”
...
On Tuesday, Rittenhouse wrote that “All gun laws are unconstitutional, change my mind,” in a post on X.
Now, was Rittenhouse right? Was everything she said really that bad?
Yeah, pretty much. I get what she meant based on her walkback comments, and while I still disagree with her, what she said in that particular clip was everything Rittenhouse said.
And his comment on Tuesday likely reinforces much of what we've said here regarding what's being enforced.
However, I'm not sure you can expect anyone to get fired for enforcing laws that have been on the books for years now. Yes, she does have the option to just refuse to enforce them, which she's already done with some anti-gun measures, but it is a firing offense to enforce others that are still there, that she never said she wouldn't enforce?
I may not like her determinations here, but that doesn't seem like something someone is going to be fired over unless she told the president she intended to do otherwise.
Frankly, I don't see Trump doing it, anyway. He's made his own troubling comments, after all, and if he fired Pirro for hers, do you think that would make life any easier for him?
I don't think so.
Rittenhouse has every right to express his opinion. However, as a public figure, his opinion is going to be different than most of ours. It's going to be torn apart, and it's going to be critiqued. In this case, calling for someone to be fired over the comments, someone who isn't going anywhere, might not have been the best move.
Not that he was wrong about Pirro's take, mind you, but because people don't get fired that easily.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country may not have expressed themselves well of late, but they are still doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member