The Obama administration never took their guns, but Trump administration says the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply

[Chasstev365]

No conceal and carry in Minneapolis according to Bovino.

Can you imagine if the Biden or Obama White administration said this? They would be attacking the White House as we speak.

Let's see if the NRA rises up against this tyrannical government.

[Attilatheblond]

1. Clinton years: Flags upside down all over Tucson

Constant screams warning of the coming of 'jack booted thugs' all over hate radio.

I knew the stupid was getting out of hand back then. Social media run amok and TV shows controlled by Fourth Reich Hopefuls haven't been any comfort.

[sarisataka]

2. The world is upside down

Republicans are saying the Second Amendment is not absolute, able to be arbitrarily restricted at the whim of government agents, in defending shooting a man because he was legally armed.

Meanwhile, the same people who once said if they see a person carrying a gun they will assume the person going to cause harm are defending him and decrying his murder

Strange times.

[Wednesdays]

3. It all depends on whose political jersey the gun carrier is wearing.

Full stop.

[AZJonnie]

4. Not entirely. Had Pretti been brandishing an AR-15, like, say, Rittenhouse, he'd be getting much less support here

The support is contingent largely on the fact that he was licensed and permitted to conceal carry, and that is what he was doing. There's also the fact that he was disarmed and on the ground, and that 10 shots were taken regardless of that fact.

If this guy were wearing the Red Jersey under these circumstances, and the POTUS were Blue, I'd still say what the "agents" did was fucked up. I'd probably make the point that it was dumb to show up to protest wearing a concealed weapon, but not that it justified the shooting.

So in the interest of logical consistency, I'll do the same here: It was unwise for Pretti to show up at a protest of this kind bearing arms. But that doesn't justify his murder. Are you two pro-2A posters satisfied by this position, or is it still hypocritical?

[Disaffected]

5. Yes, another example

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2026, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

of why it can be dangerous to carry a gun (even if he was not planning on being in the protest).

[Intractable]

6. Just by having or owning a gun, it increases the likelihood of being involved in a gun-related incident.

What was Alex going to do with his handgun at this protest? They have machine guns.

[Disaffected]

7. I wonder if he purposely attended the protest (with his gun)

or only happened to be passing by and became involved when he saw the woman being shoved around? Either way, it may have been why the ICE goon decided to shoot him.

[sarisataka]

8. The two situations are very different

so direct comparisons are nearly meaningless outside of the broadest view.

I would certainly hope people would be opposed to extrajudicial executions in public, however in ye olden days of the gungeon...

I don't see where your position is hypocritical. Is it wrong to support all ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights? The way I see it, Mr Pretti was killed for exercising both his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. MaddowBlog-Following Pretti killing, Trump opens the door to a radical shift on gun policy

To hear the Republican president tell it, Americans “can't have guns” at public gatherings. This creates an unexpected opportunity for reform advocates.

To hear the sitting Republican president tell it, Americans “can't have guns” at public gatherings.

Whether Trump understood what he was saying or not, doesn't this create an unexpected opportunity for reform advocates? www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-01-28T15:35:04.577Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/following-pretti-killing-trump-opens-the-door-to-a-radical-shift-on-gun-policy

On Tuesday, Trump repeated the line with even greater enthusiasm. Asked during his latest Fox News interview about the shooting, the president said: “I don’t like the fact that he was carrying a gun that was fully loaded and he had two magazines with him.” That came on the heels of a Trump appearance at an Iowa restaurant where he said that Pretti “certainly shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.”

A few hours earlier, while departing the White House, the president told reporters: “You know, you can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns; you just can’t.”

Trump: "With that being said, you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. You just can't. You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that. But it's just a very unfortunate incident."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-27T17:42:45.566Z

Whether or not Trump understands this, Pretti wasn’t at a protest, and even if he had been, he was legally entitled, under existing law, to carry a firearm. Indeed, well-armed conservatives have repeatedly showed up at public protests in recent years — and federal agents didn’t kill any of them.

But maybe this is the wrong way to examine the president’s comments. In fact, perhaps it would be more constructive to see his position less as incoherent prattling from an official who doesn’t understand the law or governing, and more as an invitation to a very different kind of debate over gun policy.

To hear the sitting Republican president tell it, Americans “can’t have guns” at public gatherings. This creates an unexpected opportunity for reform advocates to introduce legislation to codify Trump’s position into federal law.

Are GOP lawmakers prepared to consider such a proposal, or are they prepared to condemn Trump’s position as unconstitutional nonsense? Watch this space.