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.
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.
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.
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.
Way too many people are “Anything but the D”. And then complain they’re incels.
It is, and it’s the dumbest thing. If they could read they’d find the last administration to hinder gun rights was the Reagan regime.
Actually the last admin to go after gun rights was Trumps first term where he said, “take the guns first, go through due process second”.
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.
You know a country is deeply fucked when their guns are more important than literally everything else.
Healthcare? Nah.
Education? Nah.
Human rights? Nah.
Pew Pew Machines I can shoot cans with? Only thing that matters!
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.
single issue gun voters are lost to trump now
“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.”
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.
Yes, but now it’s true for white male conservatives who just happen to be in the right place at the wrong time.
Not an equality they’re used to.
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
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.
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.
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.