Gun Rights Activists Briefly Pause MAGA Cheerleading To Half-Assedly Defend Rights Of Murdered Minnesotan
from the fair-weather-appears-to-be-over,-friends dept
This nation is filled with loudmouths who claim the Second Amendment ensures the rest of the amendments are protected. There are a lot of gun owners who bristle at any hint of gun control, even as they insist they might be the only thing protecting us from a hostile government.
This noise gets a lot louder any time a member of the Democratic party is in the Oval Office. You barely hear it at all when the GOP in the White House, even when the current iteration of the GOP looks a whole lot like the authoritarians these people swore they’d gun down the minute they reared their fascist heads.
Our rights are being destroyed daily but no one on the Second Amendment side has said a thing until now. Perhaps only reason they’re speaking up now is because it’s a fair-skinned gun owner who was murdered by federal officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota — the second murder of a city resident in as many weeks.
ICU nurse Alex Pretti stepped between a Border Patrol officer and the woman he was trying to douse with pepper spray simply because she was standing there recording him. Pretti stood there, holding his phone up, recording the officer as he first sprayed Pretti with pepper spray before pushing him up against a wall.

Moments after that, Pretti was wrestled to the ground, swarmed and beaten by federal agents. Mere moments after that, Pretti was executed by two of the officers, as described here in Bellingcat’s frame-by-frame breakdown of all available footage of the shooting:
After firing once, the agent in the black beanie repositions, and then quickly fires three more shots at Pretti’s back at close range while he appears to try to stand up.
[…]
Pretti collapses onto the ground after the first shots and the agents back away. A second agent (the one wearing the brown beanie hat) then draws his gun and fires at least one shot. This is the fifth shot that is heard. The agent in the black beanie can be seen and heard firing more shots. Shots five through ten all fired at Pretti’s motionless body.
That shooting was immediately followed by the self-exonerating bullshit this administration has been cranking out since day one:
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino have claimed without providing further evidence, that Pretti arrived at the scene “to inflict maximum damage on individuals” and Noem told reporters that his actions amounted to “domestic terrorism.”
“This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of domestic terrorism, that’s the facts.”
No. He came with a phone and was legally carrying a legally-owned handgun. If this government is just going to assume anyone carrying a gun is a criminal who can be summarily executed merely for being near federal officers, we’re well past the point any “liberal” administration has dared to go.
And after years of ignoring cops shooting people who happened to be carrying guns (mainly because many of those people were minorities), two heavy-hitters in the gun rights arena have stepped up to criticize one of Trump’s many ineffective prosecutors, Bill Essayli, who has decided there’s no better way to cap off a long string of rejected indictments by claiming officers are fully justified if they decide to shoot people just because they have guns.

Here’s what Essayli added to his repost of the DHS’s claim that Alex Pretti signed his own death warrant by legally carrying a gun:
If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.
Don’t do it!
Whoops. Gun Owners of America jumped on this first, adding this to its repost of Essayli shoving a loaded foot into his mouth:

[W]e condemn the untoward comments of @USAttyEssayli. Federal agents are not “highly likely” to be “legally justified” in “shooting” concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.
Of course, even though this entity got all hot and bothered by the suggestion that law enforcement officers are welcome to kill gun owners, it had to first give credit where it isn’t due (suggesting the DOJ has any interest in engaging in a full investigation) and dipping out of the tweet by sending some strays in the direction of the people who are currently getting murdered by federal officers:
Finally, the Left must stop antagonizing [ICE] and [CBP] agents who are taking criminals off the street and play a crucial role in protecting communities and upholding the rule of law.
Sooooo close. If the organization had stuck to the condemnation of Bill Essayli’s assault on the only right they care about, it might have meant something. But it means so much less when this (justified) criticism of federal officials is sandwiched between bending the knee to the DOJ and mindlessly insulting people just like the person they (sort of, from an oblique angle) defended in retrospect.
The NRA followed that up with its own bit of Essayli ass-kicking.

This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong.
Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.
This one is much more straightforward, but still walks back the criticism of the federal prosecutor by telling everyone to “await” a “full investigation” which almost certainly isn’t going to be happening.
Only 14 minutes earlier, the NRA account was actually running interference for the administration with a statement it released before Essayli angered the association.
“For months, radical progressive politicians like Tim Walz have incited violence against law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs. Unsurprisingly, these calls to dangerously interject oneself into legitimate law-enforcement activities have ended in violence, tragically resulting in injuries and fatalities.
As there is with any officer-involved shooting, there will be a robust and comprehensive investigation that takes place to determine if the use of force was justified. As we await these facts and gain a clearer understanding, we urge the political voices to lower the temperature to ensure their constituents and law enforcement officers stay safe.”
This has led to Essayli trying to walk back his statement by claiming he didn’t say the thing he said and that these two prominent critics are “putting words in his mouth.” He “substantiated” his counter-claim by putting a whole lot of new words in his own mouth — words that very definitely weren’t in the shorter post he put out in support of the DHS’s smearing of the person its employees had just executed in broad daylight on a public street.
In the end, it means almost nothing. Two Second Amendment-focused organization raised their voices briefly — breaking with the administration they absolutely adore — to condemn a perceived attack on their rights. But they’re utterly silent when it comes to condemning the act that prompted their belated reaction. They don’t honestly care how many people are killed by law enforcement officers. The only thing they care about is being able to open carry while shopping at Walmart or invading federal buildings to overturn elections. Everyone to the perceived left of their core membership can continue to get fucked.
Filed Under: 2nd amendment, alex pretti, bill essayli, cbp, dhs, ice, kash patel, mass deportation, minneapolis, minnesota, murder, trump administration
Companies: gun owners of america, nra


Comments on “Gun Rights Activists Briefly Pause MAGA Cheerleading To Half-Assedly Defend Rights Of Murdered Minnesotan”
time for all of us to carry…
Re: Yes
Just remember to inform LEOs of this fact if you have any interaction with them.
Summary of the gun fan association approach:
Law enforcement should not go around shooting people like Petti because they are carrying guns, but because they aren’t fans of Donald Trump and ICE.
After all it is well-established knowledge that the fearsome lethal weapons of choice for domestic terrorists are dirty looks, whistles and unfriendly words.
And indeed, Alex Petti did became dangerous enough to require summary execution only after his gun had been taken from him.
They deserve zero credit, the limited backtracking they have done is because they have been bleeding money and influence for years now and the backlash from publicly throwing a legal gun owner under the bus because they opposed fascism would deal them a killing blow.
They hate the political left more than they like guns, and like the Supreme Court, when the time comes to ban minorities and the left from owning firearms, they will find ways to justify it and fall into line with all the other scumbags.
Non-blue
Perhaps parents of non blue children need to start having talks with their children.
If your within 20 feet of a law enforcement officer do not drive off.
do not carry on protests.
do not be in the same room as something that could be perceived as a weapon when law enforcement invades your home, even(especially?) if you think they have no reason to invade your home.
If your within 100 meters of a oak tree while law enforcement are present swiftly walk(do not run) to a safe distance.
But always remember blue rights and officer safety trump your rights.
Gun Rights not Understood by President & DHS
This article shows that Gun Rights are not Understood by the U.S. President & DHS. In particular, it amazes me that employees working in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would not know what gun rights are. Do they need some direct training to teach them? Seriously – it may help.
Re: It has nothing to do with gun rights
Alex Petti was allowed to carry a gun. Killing him was not a punishment but self-defense. Why a rational person trained to arrest persons would have to fear for their life because of a disarmed person lying on the ground is a different question.
Obviously this is just a sloppy thinly-veiled pretense for executing someone that was considered an annoyance. But within the framework of that fabrication, Alex Pretti had all the right to bear arms while being shot dead. Well, a short time before being shot dead.
'When we said abusive government we meant 'any democrat', sorry for the confusion.'
All the ammosexuals out there that decried any attempts to limit or put restrictions on gun ownership with the claim that it was vital for them to be able to own an armory’s worth of guns and ammo because how else would the public fight back against an authoritarian regime have really shown their true colors in the past year.
It was never about ‘standing up to an abusive government’ and is, and always has been, that guns give them a sense of power and control that they otherwise lack in their pathetic lives.
Re:
I’ve gone over it too many times in the comments over many years here, but the history and intent behind the 2nd Amendment is often misunderstood as a safeguard to protect citizens from an abusive government, but it was actually to safeguard a state without a standing army from an uprising by the very same kind of self-righteous abusive assholes who are conservative gun nuts, January 6th insurrectionists, Proud Boys, etc. (i.e. ICE agent recruits). They didn’t want a standing army, so if a bunch of assholes with guns decided to use force to overthrow or in the least coerce the free state government, the state was able to raise a well-regulated militia to put down the assholes’ uprising. But the gun nuts rewrote the history, notably with gun nut Scalia’s historical revisionism falsely labeled as originalism in DC v Heller.
Is this why the founders created the 2nd?
ICE has become the standing army that the founders warned could take over the country. Isn’t this why there was a second amendment in the 1st place? If ICE knew that Everytime they shot an American it would result in shoot out with them outnumbered 10 to 1 would they not shoot? More guns is not the solution to random acts of gun violence, but maybe it’s the solution to organized military force.. like the founders envisioned
Re:
No. See above.
The “Founders” were, nearly to a man, all bastards.
I guarantee they would be singing a different tune if Pretti had been black. When the Black Panthers asserted their right to bear arms in public, the NRA supported gun control.
Re:
If ICE had killed a Black man, odds are pretty good it wouldn’t even have made the news.
Playing slippery word games
Noem used a similar vagueness and ambiguity (doubtless after a hurried conference on how to spin the latest calamity), neither clarifying “with a gun in your possession/pocket/holster”, leaving the unwary reader with the impression “with a gun in your hand”.
“came with weapons” (plural?).
“to stop a law enforcement operation“: to witness and protest a law enforcement operation.
Two different subjects with no evidence he was going to use his lawful weapon to “stop a law enforcement operation”.
“committed an act of domestic terrorism“: unspecified, unless it was merely exercising his rights to protest and record, after which he was identified and added to their secret “domestic terrorist” database (as others have attested).
“that’s the facts“: and lies and spin.
Getting to be about time to publically and in chilling terms adopt the mantra ‘Voting MAGA is a death sentence’.
It will most likely be social or economic, but if they keep up the ‘government is the problem and I’ll prove it by breaking it further and making it fascist’ then you’re going to have to provoke the Insurrection Act anyway to ensure the Administration is out of ammunition on public opinion and literally both.
The country is too large to police if ten million people raise hell on a general strike nation-wide for a month in front of state law enforcement refusing to engage with the feds, and if that fails things will get uglier and probably need to get uglier, fast, to bring them to an equitable conclusion faster and begin rebuilding the economy and foreign policy.
So what’s the proverbial “Good Guy with a Gun” supposed to do in real life, when confronted with the “Bad Guy with a Gun?”
In such a situation, law enforcement is going to be on the scene imminently (well, unless perhaps it’s in an elemenary school like Uvalde). And if GG is going to be helping, he/she will be holding a weapon to use against BG.
Listening to the Trump regime talk about it, GG should expect to be shot by law enforcement for having the audacity to bring a gun to an armed conflict.
From my vantagepoint in the 2A community, I think Tim is painting with too broad a brush. A great many gun rights supporters (even the more right-leaning ones) absolutely loathe this administration and have from the beginning. Trump is not and has never been a supporter of gun rights. What little hope gun-rights folks may have had comes from him not running as a Democrat. Those who had hope feel betrayed as Trump failed to live up to his campaign promises time after time.
The NRA speaks for far fewer gun rights supporters, as their declining membership numbers suggest. This is partly due to their tendency to lick cop boots whenever the government unnecessarily kills a gun owner.