Matt Gaetz's pro-2A speech deceptively edited by the left, media silent on disinformation

A video of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) that went viral on Friday is causing a lot of concern on social media.

The video has been edited in a way that it distorts what the Republican lawmaker actually said, showing Gaetz telling an America First crowd that conservatives have an "obligation" to use the Second Amendment on Big Tech companies.

The doctored video can be found here:

The edited video shows Gaetz talking about censorship by Big Tech companies.

"Let us use the Constitution to strengthen our argument, and our movement. We have a First Amendment right to speak and assemble, and we better use it. The internet’s hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us," says Gaetz in the edited video.

"Maybe if you're just a little less patriotic, maybe if you just conform to their way of thinking a little more, then you will be allowed to participate in the digital world," Gaetz continues in the clip. "Well, you know what? Silicon Valley can't cancel this movement or this rally or this congressman."

The video then cuts to another point in the speech where Gaetz states, "We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it." The deceptive clip left out context that those were two separate thoughts. The last sentence started an entire discussion of the Second Amendment.

Gaetz's entire speech took place at an "America First" rally last night:

News outlets like Mediate "got rupared," explained Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec, meaning the publication fell for the edit.

So did the Independent, which echoed the same conflation.

Politics Insider followed suit as did numerous others.

HuffPost claimed that Gaetz "called for violence" the day following the mass shooting in San Jose.

Group blog Boing Boing alleged Gaetz encouraged the crowd "to shoot Silicon Valley workers."

The Dispatch's editor-in-chief Jonah Goldberg joined the delusional forces. "I want to be clear: There are only three options: He's evil, he's stupid, or he's both."

The Bulwark columnist Amanda Carpenter was duped as well: "Why do we need a January 6 Commission? Because the threat is ongoing. See below."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) revealed how he fails to understand the law or the First Amendment, claiming the instance wasn't protected speech under the First Amendment and was "beyond yelling fire in a theater."

"The speech that @AdamKinzinger is trying to declare criminal here as outside the bounds of the First Amendment is virtually identical to the speech that the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) was protected political speech," commented journalist Glenn Greenwald.

"If anything, the speech that the Brandenburg court ruled cannot be punished was far more explicit in its advocacy of violence that Rep. Gaetz's far more subtle allusions to the 2nd Amendment," rebutted Greenwald. "Either way, it's dangerous for a member of Congress to try to declare speech a crime."