A number of pro-gun rights Republicans pushed back on the administration's argument that Alex Pretti was dangerous because he had a gun. Pretti was legally licensed to carry one.

A war of words over deeply held beliefs erupted on the political right in the hours after a federal agent shot and killed Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street Saturday, pitting top officials in Donald Trump’s administration against Second Amendment defenders in his electoral base.

At the core of the debate is that Pretti — who was permitted to carry a gun in public in Minnesota — had a concealed firearm on his person that eyewitness videos show federal agents apparently discovering and removing during the altercation that led to his death. Videos do not appear to show Pretti holding the weapon during that confrontation.

Kristi Noem sought to justify the killing by asserting at a news conference that Pretti “attacked those officers, had a weapon on him, and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that and impeding their work that they were doing.” No evidence has been provided to back up this account.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 45 points 9 months ago (35 children)

I have always held the moral belief that no citizen should be allowed to legally own a firearm. That doesn’t mean we should just ignore current law.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (29 children)

    Why do you believe no citizen should be allowed to legally own a firearm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    I am against firearms in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    Fair enough. The modern world would probably be an overall better place if firearms didn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    But they do exist. And you don't want the fascist to be the only ones who have them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Well the fascists AND non-fascists have them in America. Not seeing how its making any difference.

    2A was specifically written to help prevent a tyrannical government.

    Hasn't worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    It was never claimed that it would work overnight. You can't just plead the 2nd as if it were the 5th and , flash, everything is all democracy again. Organized and individual actions, both, will likely be necessary.

    All the Second does for us is ensure that we weren't disarmed at this point. One thing I can guarantee is that nobody is going to be discussing any plans for retaliation on this forum or any like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Every day we get closer to the tipping point. Arm yourself with a firearm and the knowledge on how to use it safely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The anti-fascist having a gun doesn't seem to have helped him in any way. Just giving the fascists a talking point for demonizing him after the fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago*

    They'll make up any excuse. This one is bullshit like the rest but this excuse is one that has been the law since 1791. People seem to really care about it and previous SCOTUSs have made very clear that no laws can infringe on that even when it's to prevent harm.

    I feel so funny on this because I want to defend a right under attack by the rump admin but also it's a right I want limited in many ways... Just not right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Farmers use them to protect livestock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

    Why should citizens be allowed to legally own firearms? Best reasons I can conjure up: to engage in subsistence hunting, if that's their thing. Self defense, either from other humans with bad intentions or large wild/feral animals. Target shooting as recreation. Ensuring the collectively armed citizenry can defend itself against an unlawful tyrant threatening national values and founding principles.

    I would personally prefer to live in a world where everyone respects everyone else's rights to life, liberty, and property and there are no reasons at all for firearms to exist, so they don't and absolutely no one has one.

    But I don't live in that world. I live in a world where people cheat, steal, maim, and kill. It would be nice to have an impenetrable forcefield protecting me from harm, but I don't have that, either. So, the next best thing, is a way to level the playing field. To ensure the smallest, least physically-imposing person can be every bit as lethal as the largest bad motherfucker intent on causing harm. I think that's the central idea as shared by The Cornered Cat.

    Edit: I guess another reason would be to make an armed country harder to invade by another country. The would-be invader may think twice before laying feet upon the armed country's soil, knowing the likelihood of a strong underground and guerrilla tactics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Did you just not read the first and second paragraph?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I guess you could take it as that but also I feel like it is a legitimate reason to own a gun. Especially because I personally know people that do actually hunt as a way to put food on the table. Being vegetarian is perfectly valid and a good choice and everything but also shouldn't be forced on everyone. And honestly hunting is more ethical than buying meat from the grocery store or whatever, and much more of the animal gets used if you do it right.

    But even if you completely disregard hunting, what about target shooting for sport?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Not exclusively to survive, but to allow their family to have a cheap protein source, and they probably would financially struggle even more if they couldn't hunt.

    Animals die all the time to provide food for other creatures, and I would rather the animal have a good life out in the wilderness doing whatever it wants and then being quickly and painlessly killed than grown on a farm with little freedom for a couple years and then butchered. Also, then you can pay the proper respects to the animal for it's flesh and you have to be the one to kill it not abstracting that away by buying it in a store. I understand not thinking any creature deserves to die but there are levels of nuance and levels of how ethical meat is to consume beyond that.

    Also, yeah a football probably could kill someone if you kicked it at their head hard enough and they didn't have a helmet. A baseball definitely could if thrown by a professional pitcher. Not sure what relevance that has

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I think the need for armed citizens to fight tyranny is real but it's also true that guns are very dangerous and cause a lot of problems in society.

    My best solution is autonomous community armories. What do you think of that idea?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments