In a heated interview with CNN‘s Dana Bash on Sunday, Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino said his agents were the real “victims” in the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis protestor.
Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Veterans Affairs nurse, was killed by Border Patrol agents on Saturday. In videos of the deadly altercation between Pretti and several agents, he can be seen placing himself between an agent and several women that he was shoving. Pretti is sprayed with a chemical irritant and then wrestled to the ground, where one agent repeatedly hit him in the head with the irritant’s metal canister. Pretti, who was legally carrying a firearm, was fatally shot by agents while on the ground.
DHS immediately painted Pretti as a threat, saying that officers feared for their lives because Pretti was legally carrying a firearm. Multiple videos of the shooting contradicted the official line that Pretti was threatening agents. On Sunday, Bash pressed Bovino for evidence “that he was intending to massacre law enforcement.”
When Bash repeatedly asserted Pretti’s right to carry his firearm, Bovino made the bold claim that Pretti forfeited his Second Amendment rights via his actions.
Never seen a bovine more ripe for the meat packing plant. Not that I’d let any dog i care about touch the filth that comes from his carcass in particular.
At this point I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that when the right-wing 2A guys argue that 2A is inviolable/shall not be infringed, they mean it only in the context of service to right-wing politics, not that it’s a right that applies to anyone else. In other words, they support the notion of privilege, not rights.
My dad has always said it’d be the Republicans who would take guns.
They’re working for it.
California’s gun-control culture started with a 1967 law (Mulford Act) designed to outlaw carrying loaded guns. It was specifically written to keep the Black Panthers from patroling their neighborhoods with loaded firearms.
It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
I was actually surprised to see a lot of comments on r/conservative talking about how the stuff the feds are saying about the second amendment is wrong and unconstitutional, and a good number saying that the killing wasn’t necessary, they’ll ultimately support Trump and ICE over any kind of progressive though but it was interesting. Even the NRA posted about how Pretti was a legal gun owner and there should be an investigation before people jump to conclusions.
This. Don’t fall into the team based bullshit, this level of jackbootery should piss off everyone. If not for the red/blue bullshit I am sure that the vast majority of americans would rally together to counter the government overreach but instead everyone is doing the Two Minutes Hate.
When the order to seize the guns comes, it will come from the right, and not the left. Those with money can have guns, those without, can’t, no matter what party they belong to.
Never gonna happen in the USA.
If MAGA takes permanent power, you can kiss your legal guns goodbye.
No such thing as permanent power.
Historically speaking or in your personal experience in the US?
Said the republic right before Caesar
Of course they support the notion of privilege. They are all about privilege and anti-egalitarianism.
The NRA and right wing gun culture has convinced a generation that the 2A is about your right to own a gun.
The 2A is explicitly about your right to organize members of your community in order to defend your community, the fact that you need weapons for that means that you must also have the right to own weapons.
It also explicitly says “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Does anyone else not give a flying fuck what traitors say?
There’s my peoples. Fuck these nazis.
I didn’t realize constitutionally-enshrined rights were something a single appointed official could wave away simply by saying they “don’t count.”
And even if the victim had broken a law (say, if he didn’t have a permit (which he did)), then the legal recourse isn’t a summary execution. He was disarmed, he was no longer a threat, and even if he had been carrying illegally (which he wasn’t), the law says that he be arrested and granted due process in a court of law.
These federal agents violated due process and the rule of law, and the victim didn’t even break any laws.
I didn’t realize constitutionally-enshrined rights were something a single appointed official could wave away simply by saying they “don’t count.”
IOKIYAR.
This Pretti guy didn’t seem like he was sufficiently identifying as a Republican…rights only belong to conservative Republicans.
Mind explaining the acronym? Too many permutations for me to try to think it through…
Oh!
IOKIYAR -> It’s OKay If You’re A Republican
Oh! I see. In-groups and out-groups. Protecting and binding. Got it!
Thanks
I am a lifelong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but not a single issue voter. So no one can really place me politically.
What bothers me most is fellow gun enthusiasts (cough republican gun nuts)… always say its a “God given right”…
these events are going to be a brain melting contraction to their beliefs that the GOP supports them and that the 2A is immutable.
The GOP did a great job of convincing the feeble minded that they are their supporters and guns are their greatest political topic to rally behind… Now trump is having a come to jesus moment for the party, as his DHS, FBI, and others in his administration are saying they will kill you if you have guns around them
The idea of “god given rights” has never been true. Humans have always had to fight for every right they have ever had, and it takes away power from those rights to insinuate they were given to us by some magic sky man.
Americans, show them your second amendment counts already
That is the rhetoric the regressives have used incessantly to defend their rights to firearms. Now that the KKK and proud bois have been given guns and federal authority suddenly those rules don’t apply anymore.
Who couldn’t have seen this coming other than most of us. The people I work with are 90% non white. They don’t think this will apply to them. They don’t like me talking about it. They think they can just keep their head down and someone else will take care of it.
I mean, it’s Charlie Kirk, but still, what a stupid thing to put in the Constitution if it’s for that reason. What about a plebiscite to kick out some rogue government? Nah, let’s give guns to the people so they can make a Civil War whenever they feel like it.
Well, discounting the fact that it probably did also serve as means self-defense in an era and place where any form or central peacekeeping force would have logistical difficulties coming to anyone’s rescue in a timely manner:
Way back when the colonies had newly and violently won their independence, the idea of just voting a corrupt government out of power would have been laughable to them: What if that government prevents that vote from taking place at all? Why would it respect what a bunch of unarmed civilians have to say? How would those civilians stand up to the might of a professional army under control of that government?
Because of those concerns, they greatly reduced the size of the army after the war was over, so no central government could wield such power again. Instead, citizen militias were formed that, if necessary for defense, would convene and fight together, but couldn’t individually take over the country. Thus, there needed to be a constitutional right for those militias to arm themselves. Essentially, it was a way to decentralise military power.
It should also be noted that “arms” back then will not have been the automatic guns we have today. A single gunman wouldn’t have done as much damage in the same time as modern-day shooters can. As so many other laws, it’s something made ages ago and never adapted to the changing times.
(But also, I’m not really sure how you’d hold such a plebiscite today either. Even if there was some law to formalise it, I imagine it would face the exact same issue: being suppressed by said corrupt government.)
Yes, the whole ‘well regulated militia’ part is key, and is pushed aside.
In fact, if Minnesota had their state guard still, could be awfully handy right about now… Though it looks like the federal military frowvs upon states making significant investments along those lines…
But in general, that was written at a time when they didn’t imagine maintaining a sufficient federal military and when, like you say, the best firearm a civilian could have rivaled the firearms the military could have and, in an individual context, were generally less useful than blades, since reload time made them impractical for a one to many engagement.
Though it looks like the federal military frowvs upon states making significant investments along those lines…
Yeah, obviously the federal government and its organs would prefer to centralise power. That’s not a (good) reason to give up state power, particularly given the historical context, as is now becoming painfully obvious.
In a way, it’s a far more macabre version of the motivation behind the Fediverse: Central power is much easier to abuse.
Yeah, just saying how things pivoted from the ‘founding fathers’. Back then regional militias seemed a grand idea to not have to deal with national defense and individuals specifically weren’t really an explicit thought because no one had reason to be worried about a man with a muzzle loaded musket. Now they pretend it was exclusively about individual rights to personal scale firearms, but shy away from any organized military that could pose a plausible threat.
And this is why the USA keeps making trouble in foreign lands. The establishment keeps repeating they live in a democracy, but the people can’t change things, not really. In the XX century, Vargas Llosa called the Mexican establishment the “perfect dictatorship”, because one party was the only option, nevertheless, elections were held. I think it now suits the USA. Their political spectrum is so narrow, that they believe they elect between two parties with opposed ideologies. They are barely opposed outside the USA.
Honestly, it seems like they are two peoples tired of fighting each other.
In that case, nazi fucks also have no rights.
Rights are never forfeited, they are violated.
Boy needs a couple strong rights, a few lefts, and finishing uppercut to his idiotic head
The Right is coming for your guns.
Well and isn’t that just what they accused the left (and the center) of doing? Full disclosure, I am a gun owning slightly left of center.
Yes. But the left never wanted your guns. Just sensible laws. The right will now have to take your guns because they don’t want anyone forming a militia.
It’s always been projection with those fucks.
Man, I wonder if the second amendment set is finally realizing the right has always wanted your guns more than the left.
Or did we forget “take the guns first”?
