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.

all 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 155 points 9 months ago

The victim's gun was in a waistband holster and an ICE agent took it before the other one shot him. The blatant lying is wild

  • source
  • [–] 113 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Good ol' No-Evidence Noem. "Just take my word for it, Cricket practically asked me to shoot him in the face with that shotgun. He was a Domestic Terrier Terrorist. Anyone who pisses me off is a Domestic Terrorist."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 49 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    For the record, liberals need to open carry like these dudes here.

    Again, Democrats try to play nice, concealed, holstered weapons, instead of wearing full body Armor with ar15.

    I guarantee you no ice pussy would attack them, becuase they'd be afraid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

    He died because he's the kind of person ICE fears most: someone who was willing to defend themselves, and knew how to do so legally.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    He wasn't defending himself, he was curled up on the ground covering himself as he was pulled, pushed, and BEATEN in every which way. Once the gun was discovered and pulled the agent in the green sweater literally pulled out his pistol and started shooting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Clearly once the gun was removed from the altercation, it was now safe to kill him. What if they accidentally shot the gun and it caused the shot to ricochet or they hit the ammo clip and caused those to ignite/fire.

    Finding and removing the gun made it safe to proceed.

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

    What is it that you people don't understand about "The right's right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?

    Maybe you should take a course to read good.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    This is one of those "second amendment people" that the felon in chief liked to talk about.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Push this angle, deconvert some magats.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Remember, Trump is the one who said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second." Way back in 2018.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    How many kids had to die in school shootings in order to protect these 2A rights? But a holstered weapon is suddenly a threat to 6 men armed to the teeth and wearing body armor.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Don't tread on me people getting treaded on harder

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Psst.

    It's because black people are open carrying.

    Just like the last time Republicans started talking about gun control when black people started open carrying.

    Psst.

    The American conservative movement is a racist movement.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Spot on! Ask Ronnie Motherfuck Reagan about your comment. California used to be open carry until 1968 (?). The Black Panthers were protesting and marched into the state capitol building with their rifles and pistols. Ron and a senator shit their racist pants and changed the gun laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    Anyone who is even the slightest bit surprised by this wasn't paying attention.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Oh shit they scurred they about to go after gun rights.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    This is one of the main reasons people don't vote blue. They care a lot about their firearms. If the red start going after them, grab some popcorn because things will go down. Maybe this is whats needed to get them to open their eyes.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    “The dems want to take away your firearms!”

    “That may or may not be true, but the GOP WILL just kill you and label you a terrorist if they find out you have a firearm.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That's been true for a long time in police interactions. Possessing a firearm in public alone has been justification for detainment, arrest and use of force including lethal force countless times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Disagree. They're fine with it if the person doing it claims to be red.

    Guarantee no die hard 2FA MAGAt changes their mind over any of this.

    Trump voters have literally lost their business, their jobs, have had to relocate due to lifestyle collapse, and they still say voting for him is better than the alternative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, I doubt very much this will matter to them. See: all the campaigning and crying they did over Epstein and now how they are good with covering that shit up, or making insane executes. The hypocrisy does not matter to them at all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I disagree. I really think you are underestimating how much Americans, especially American men, especial rural men who hunt and don't like being bossed around by a government that's far away, want to buy whatever weapons they want without extra regulation.

    For many people, they vote just based on the NRA's selection. If the Democrats became a more pro-gun party, they would gain a substantial amount of power in the US.

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

    Maybe, or they will just make it political: registered dems can’t own guns or something else insane. I guess we will see, I would have thought oedophilia would be the line, but if they are ok with that and suddenly 2a is the breaking point …. I mean I’m disgusted but if we get there we get there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    They can now if they want to.

    The left has always been pro firearm regulation. Not removing them.

    Fox News did a marvelous job at convincing them that anyone to the left of them was a pacifist and wanted no weapons.

    Like you talk to any hardline 2A supporter, and they will straight up agree with you that some people really shouldn't have firearms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    Nah. There isnt some huge group of people who would give their vote to Dems if Dems were pro-gun. The Dems would lose more support than they would gain. The Dems' gun control positions are mostly pretty moderate and have majority support in swing states.

    I see this pro-gun hysteria on the Virginia sub on Reddit all the time. They're so massively out of touch with real life. They actually think that hardcore pro-gun positions are popular when they're not, polls consistently show that large majorities of the electorate support gun control measures.

    Before the election they were all screaming about how Dems were losing votes because of gun control, and then Spanberger proceeded to win by 15 points and the legislature now has the largest Dem majority since the 1970s.

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

    I think its dependent on their base. I firmly believe Beto O'Rourke would have unseated Fled Cruz if there wasn't an emotional sound bite of him saying "Hell yeah we're taking your guns!" After a WalMart in his hometown was shot up.

    Ted Cruz (and Greg Abbott in the ensuing gubnatorial election) both played the FUCK out of that clip, and Beto lost both elections but only by a slim margin.

    I'm not a 2A person, but I personally think if there was someone progressive like AOC or Bernie Sanders AND they touted gun ownership, they would be a winning candidate every single time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    They did do that but they weren't the last. Clinton passed the AWB, which was essentially a "scary looking guns" ban. Guns that were functionally the same could be legal or illegal based on meaningless cosmetic features. It was dumb ineffective pandering, the worst kind of 2A violation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Treat her like she treats puppies.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Everyone in the trump admin is acting like the 2A will get you killed by them. They’re not violating the right they’re just murdering in tangent

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Anyone else remember the wild accusations all these years about how tHe LiBrUlS wAnNa TaKe Ur gUnS!

    But wait. Anyone noticing how it's not the "libruls" shitting themselves right now, but the NRA and right-wing 2A groups who want no part of this new narrative?

    For anyone paying attention, this was always the right wing plan. Always.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Absolutely. I have an overarching theorem about US "Conservative" politicians and donors that I've been challenging for decades but remains unchanged.

    Tr;dr: the top brass are all fucking grifters.

    Their primary strategy is doing whatever is most effective and expedient for increasing their socioeconomic power, even if that directly contradicts their previous and current actions and alleged principles. They're only ostensibly aligned with conservative values because they're the best for meeting that goal, especially because true social conservative voters are overall both less educated and intelligent, and therefore less critical.

    Since noticing that, their actions are all quite consistent and predictable and the hypocrisy rarely surprises me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    We need more community defense classes now more than ever. Seriously!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Can’t wait until Krusty Gnome is hanging around at the Hauge. You think she will be asking for her right to Habeas Corpus then?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Doubt she will ever set foot in the ICC, unless the next president will hand her over personally. Like the US president has the power to use all means necessary to free US service members when they are detained on behalf of the ICC. Meaning the US president can invade the Netherlands without the need for Congressional approval.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Mega supporters might be coming to the realization that Trump and his fascist machinery will turn on them as fast as they have on anyone else. They don't have any power and as soon as the easier targets are gone that bullseye will switch to them. Probably will lose their cherished guns and "right to battle tyranny and govt outreach" long before they truly understand what they have willingly handed over to Trump and Co.

  • source
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Orange man's "faith" office is all crickets nowadays.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm summoning the NRA to do some good for once

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    They already issued a milquetoast response on it and republicans are siding with Noem even tho it’s nonsense.

    It doesn’t matter what these clowns do. That cult of MAGA can do no wrong in their eyes. Greg Bovino could arrest Jesus for coming to the US illegally during the Second Coming and the conservatives would applaud him for getting rid of another illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Democrats Republicans are coming for your guns!

  • source
  • 32 comments in c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world view that post
    9 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    3 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post