[You need more than a picture to frame an OP -- Staff]

Is this picture current, or is it from that cattle standoff thing in Nevada a few years ago?

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Is this picture current, or is it from that cattle standoff thing in Nevada a few years ago?

---

The latter

I'm pretty sure one of them was shot and killed by a federal agent. What's the point here

I mean, it wasn't the least risky idea. Nobody would argue with that.

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

"...shall not be infringed."

---

Is this REALLY how you understand that statement and this situation?

K

The next few days are going to be very interesting with this administration, NRA will be voicing soon.

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

Muy said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

"...shall not be infringed."

---

Is this REALLY how you understand that statement and this situation?

---

You cannot bring a gun into a court room, which tells you that there are limits on where and when you cannot bring a gun.

Dan Carlin said:

---

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

---

Liberals want more gun laws, but also consider many of them "arbitrary".

Dan Carlin said:

---

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

---

Why is your side protecting violent criminals? That's what all of this stems from. Why?

Also, if federal snipers took the man out on the bridge and he had federal agents in his crosshairs I don't have a problem with it.

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

---

Liberals want more gun laws, but also consider many of them "arbitrary".

---

They want to seize all guns, except the ones they have, and ensure their communism eliminates all who they dislike

I heard a rumor that the gun involved may have been a certain SIG model known for discharge issues.

Dan Carlin said:

---

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

---

Is bringing a loaded gun to interfere with police and then resisting arrest while armed arbitrary infractions? Asking for a friend.

Dan Carlin said:

---

The playbook by the authoritarian regime is to declare every legal gun owner guilty of any arbitrary infraction, thereby justifying lethal use of force against them.

---

Oh good lord

Yup, believe that guy was arrested and convicted in federal court

doubledog said:

---

Muy said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

"...shall not be infringed."

---

Is this REALLY how you understand that statement and this situation?

---

You cannot bring a gun into a court room, which tells you that there are limits on where and when you cannot bring a gun.

---

And on the street when you are a licensed carrier is not one of them. If you can't exercise a right without it being justification to be shot by an LEO, you do not in fact have that right.

samurai_science said:

---

---

Yep, these precious souls >>>>>>> the weaponized outrage of leftist freaks with septum piercings. Not sorry.

Concealed carry goes from legal to illegal the moment you are engaged in any sort of Felony in most states.

For OP…

If he was following all local laws, he had every right to carry a firearm to the protest. Seems he was illegally carrying at the time though, but he still in theory could have been legal.

Being at a protest does not magically erase the Second Amendment.

Now, the moment he decided he did not want to comply with officer orders and not let the officers know he was armed, he became an obstruction criminal and his 2nd went out the widow.

Jay Hubbard made a good summary on his Facebook page about it.

Part of being a responsible gun owner, law abiding citizen, and taking EVERYONE's safety into account is to always be up front with officers, when directly engaged, that you are LEGALLY carrying a firearm.

Unfortunately, I've been pulled over several times while carrying in my car. From the moment that officer steps out of the car until he gets to my window, I keep my hands visible. After the office does his introduction, first thing I do is tell him I have a firearm. Before I move a single inch. I tell them exactly where it is and where I will be reaching to get my documents.

100% of the time, this has kept me out of any confrontations with law enforcement. Funny how that works.

Do I, or a person, HAVE TO tell the officer they are carrying? Absolutely not. I am in full agreement with those who say you do not. What I am saying, is that if you do, and you are 100% legal like me, it defuses the situation before the fuse is even lit.

If that cross dressing freak had not decided to fight the law, he would not be dead. It is that simple, and too many damned idiots can't figure that simple lesson out.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Muy said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

"...shall not be infringed."

---

Is this REALLY how you understand that statement and this situation?

---

You cannot bring a gun into a court room, which tells you that there are limits on where and when you cannot bring a gun.

---

And on the street when you are a licensed carrier is not one of them. If you can't exercise a right without it bring justification to be shot by an LEO, you do not in fact have that right.

---

Please stop pushing the lie that this guy was just an innocent bystander

He was part of a group illegally tracking ICE for the express purpose of obstructing their duties

And he decided to bring a loaded gun with him to go interfere with the cops. What was the goal there? To shoot a federal agent if they tried arrest him?

Because he definitely decided to violently resist arrest while armed and guess what that led to

Maroon Dawn said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Muy said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

"...shall not be infringed."

---

Is this REALLY how you understand that statement and this situation?

---

You cannot bring a gun into a court room, which tells you that there are limits on where and when you cannot bring a gun.

---

And on the street when you are a licensed carrier is not one of them. If you can't exercise a right without it bring justification to be shot by an LEO, you do not in fact have that right.

---

Please stop pushing the lie that this guy was just an innocent bystander

He was part of a group illegally tracking ICE for the express purpose of obstructing their duties

And he decided to bring a loaded gun with him to go interfere with the cops. What was the goal there? To shoot a federal agent if they tried arrest him?

---

One, he had a phone in his hand and was obviously recording ICE from the videos that are available. That is perfectly legal under the first amendment. You can follow cops and record them in the performance of their duties all day long, as long as you don't try to intervene, and you can do it while carrying thanks to the second amendment. We can clearly see an ICE agent directing him to back up and Pretti complying by walking backwards to the other side of the street while exchanging words, and then Pretti turning away until the agent shoves someone else to the ground. Pretti puts his hand on the agent's arm and confronts him over the shove (which seems unjustified given the agent was the first to make physical contact and had no reasonable need to back anyone up further), and at that point Pretti gets maced. From there he's taken to the ground, disarmed, and then shot. There's no violent resistance that I can see besides putting his hand up and turning his head to avoid the mace. All things considered, the argument that he was interfering or presented some imminent threat that justified lethal force doesn't hold water. If he was such a problem, then why not arrest him instead of getting him to back up across the street?

Two, none of what you said is relevant because we can clearly see he was disarmed before being shot and never had a gun in his hand. He never pulled his weapon or pointed his weapon at anyone, so you're justifying him being shot merely for carrying.

Three, he doesn't need a goal or reason to be armed. It's his God given and constitutional right to bear arms.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Dear OP, let's expand on some things that aren't a great idea:

-Illegally track down Federal agents for the explicit purpose of interfering in their duties

-Bring a loaded gun with you to said planned obstruction of justice

-Interfere in operation and insert yourself into the detention of another suspect

-Violently resisting arrest while being armed

All these things exponentially increase your chances of suicide by cop

Do you agree OP?

---

I agree with all of your points but don't agree with the bolded text. There is no provision in the Bill of Rights preventing someone from carrying a weapon to protest/riot.

Quote:

---

Pretti puts his hand on the agent's arm and confronts him over the shove

---

This is where he ****ed up. Stay out of their way. Don't touch them under any circumstances. Period. The end.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Pretti puts his hand on the agent's arm and confronts him over the shove

---

This is where he ****ed up. Stay out of their way. Don't touch them under any circumstances. Period. The end.

---

They are being paid for this by Democrats