Tensions are continuing to escalate following the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent, with activists increasingly turning to incendiary rhetoric. One self-declared antifa protester is now claiming that the Second Amendment exists specifically to combat what he described as an “occupation” by federal agents.
In a recently surfaced video, the protester, identified only as “Kyle,” stated, “We are under occupation, and this is what the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for.” His remarks appear to echo and escalate earlier comments made by another protester, who said it was time to “show up with guns and end this.”
That individual went on to declare he no longer felt safe protesting without being armed, even if it meant showing up without a permit. He said the time for peace was over and justified potential violence by claiming ICE had “fired the first shot.”
The remarks come in response to a recent ICE operation that ended with a woman allegedly attempting to ram officers with her vehicle before being shot. Federal officials have characterized the shooting as an act of self-defense. Critics, however, have questioned that version of events and demanded a broader investigation into ICE’s use of force.
The rhetoric coming out of the protests has increasingly featured language suggesting violent resistance. Some demonstrators argue that conventional protest is no longer effective and that action must be taken “by any means necessary.” These comments are sparking concern over whether the situation could spiral into further unrest or inspire individuals to take extreme measures.
While many are expressing legitimate grievances over the shooting, the growing call for armed confrontation is drawing sharp criticism. The debate over law enforcement accountability is now colliding with questions about the limits of protest and the potential misuse of constitutional rights.
