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.
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.
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?
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…
Boy needs a couple strong rights, a few lefts, and finishing uppercut to his idiotic head
Americans, show them your second amendment counts already
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
Rights are never forfeited, they are violated.
In that case, nazi fucks also have no rights.
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.)
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.
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.
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”?
“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.”
– Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
We STILL haven’t even seen the worst of it. People consistently lacked the willingness to recognize that it could happen here, even when the threat was imminent. They don’t want to think unhappy thoughts, don’t want to think their world is crumbling, don’t want to acknowledge that things will never go back to how they were. It’s incredibly frustrating how much people delude themselves so they don’t need to stare into the void.
There were people in 2024 saying that the shit happening at this very moment would never happen under Trump 2.0.
These abhorrent acts have been so normalized over the last year that the unthinkable has become blase.
I shudder to think of where we are going to be in another year.
Weird thing is this is the “government takeover” the 2nd amendment nuts have been screaming about for generations. Not at all surprised that they’re mostly silent now. Also not at all surprised it their own political party who’s doing this.
These people have been led around by the nose their whole lives. The same people who have been shouting this nonsense at the 2nd losers are the ones who were inevitably going to pull this.
I keep seeing this take and it’s half thought out at best. First of all, I don’t think it’s true. There are plenty of armed citizens not sympathetic to ICE in any way. They are reasonable adults who have not felt it necessary up to this point to engage in a last resort effort that is likely to endanger tens of thousands of people at minimum. You may think we are already past that point, and we may well be, but you can’t deny that wanting to be sure it is necessary before taking up arms against their countrymen is exactly what a reasonable adult with a firearm should do.
Second, if what you are saying is true and there are no reasonable citizens with guns then the logical course of action is to buy a gun, organize in your community, and practice your 2nd Amendment rights as you see fit. They don’t just apply to conservatives despite what Bovino is trying to argue. Complaining about the past isn’t going to change the future so if you see a gap, fill it.
Now I don’t know if you’re American or not but I do see this sentiment from Americans on a regular basis and that is who am I addressing.
I don’t think they meant “all gun owning citizens” when they said “2nd amendment nuts”. I think they were talking about a particular type of person who bases their whole identity around owning guns to fight against the government.
I don’t think he’s saying the second amendment tells you use your guns to shoot people when there is anything you consider tyrannical government oppression, only that having the guns are supposed to preempt that problem in theory — and the theory is clearly invalidated.
The fact that traditional second amendment proponents (the NRA) have backed away from that theory and now side with the proto fascist tyrannical government demonstrates the argument was always bankrupt and was never a principle in practice.
That said — you correctly point out that there still room for people to actually start using said guns for shooting, which is indeed the logical next step. Putin is shitting himself laughing.
Fire extinguishers don’t ward off fires. You need to actually use them after the fire has started. The same goes with firearms and tyranny. They don’t prevent it, but they can be used against it.
Fires don’t fear you rising up against them
Guess that’s why you have to actually use the fire extinguisher?
Exactly. The fire isn’t going to think “gee sure are a lot of folks with extinguishers out there, I better not start burning anything or they’ll kill me”. Unless you elect a really stupid fire that knows it’s going to be dead soon anyway and will never face consequences.
Weird thing is this is the “government takeover” the 2nd amendment nuts have been screaming about for generations.
No no no. You’re thinking of the Civil Rights Act. That’s what they were complaining about.
Cf Reagan and California’s gun control laws.
OC
Yeah, but the picture is obviously a casual tour of the Capitol. That’s the lie they’ve told and lies before that and this is another round of lies people want to believe. And I’m sure I’ll hear it spouted when I’m out and about.
They were mostly peaceful, allegedly, and nobody got hurt (if you don’t count the people that got hurt or killed).
You’re a terrorist assassin deserving of execution if you help a woman who was shoved over in the snow, but attempting to climb through a secure and barricaded door in the face of multiple people with their weapons drawn then being shot makes you a tragic victim worth of a multi-million dollar settlement.
War is Peace, also
