Exercising Your 2nd Amendment Rights Is Not A Death Sentence
By: Wes Siler
DISARM ICE!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Earlier today, masked government thugs publicly executed a person on the streets of Minneapolis, firing multiple shots after pepper spraying, forcing the person onto the ground, and beating them with a pistol. In a statement issued just after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security claims the execution was, "defensive shots," and says the victim was at fault because they were carrying a handgun.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara has identified the victim as a, "37-year old white male, resident of the city…we believe he is a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry."
If it is true that the victim was carrying a handgun, then DHS is essentially arguing that legally exercising your Second Amendment rights now carries with it penalty of death.
DHS goes on to state, "At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here."
If that Sig Sauer P320 was being carried such that it could have been seen by the masked government thugs, then the victim was engaged in something called "open carry."
What DHS is claiming is the victim's handgun is a custom Sig P320. Approximately a $1,600 weapon of the kind owned by experienced, discerning shooters.
Minnesota state law allows for both open and concealed carry. Individuals possessing a valid Minnesota Permit to Carry a Handgun may legally carry a handgun in public, including in Minneapolis. That permit provides for both open and concealed carry.
There is currently no evidence that the victim brandished or otherwise used the gun to threaten the masked government thugs. So far, videos from the scene show the victim filming the thugs before they confront him, to which he appears to respond calmly. When the thugs begin to beat a woman, the victim inserts himself between her and the attackers, at which point they pepper spray him, throw him to the ground, and pistol whip him, before one masked government thug draws his own handgun and, judging by the video, appears to fire a single shot into the back of the victim's head as the lays on the ground. Other officers then fire multiple additional shots, it's not clear in which direction. In the aftermath of the shooting, additional videos show the thugs not rendering aid, as is typical policy for law enforcement, but instead rifling through the body's pockets.
DHS claims, "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
The shooting is troublingly reminiscent of the 2016 murder of Philando Castile—a black man—who was murdered by police in Minnesota for exercising his Second Amendment rights. During a routine traffic stop Castile, who also possessed a valid Permit to Carry, informed the police officer that he was in possession of a firearm. The officer instructed Castile not to reach for that firearm, to which he responded, "I'm not." The officer then fired seven shots at point blank range, hitting Castile five times.
In the wake of Castile's murder, so-called "gun rights" organizations like the National Rifle Association failed to issue any substantial statement, or to call for any changes to police training, procedures, or similar. As of the time of writing, the NRA has yet to issue any statement about this execution.
I've been making the point for years that the real purpose of so called, "gun rights" organizations like the NRA has nothing to do with gun rights, but is instead to radicalize low-information Americans into voting for tax cuts for billionaires using guns as a nexus of radicalization and disinformation. The NRA's language has nothing to do with its actions.
Take, for instance, this commercial which sets out to recruit members for the NRA. It expressly argues that immigrants need to own guns in order to defend against torture, assassination, and, "hanging the people in the streets."
Well, NRA, masked government thugs are executing law-abiding Americans in the streets, in broad daylight, in front of cameras. And they say they're doing that because we're exercising our Constitutional right to self-defense. Where are you?
I want to add here that the possession of a Permit to Carry, or even legal firearms ownership, is typically viewed by law enforcement officers as a sign that the person in question is a law-abiding citizen. People indicted for or who have been convicted of felony crimes are not generally allowed to own or carry guns in this country.
A journalist with more than two decades of experience working around the world, Wes Siler is here to cut through the outrage and disinformation to bring you the factual, insightful, actionable reporting you need to understand what's going on. Upgrading to a paid subscription supports this reporting, and buys personal access to Wes, who will help you save money on gear, and prepare for real life.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
251 visitors
The solution seems obvious. Disarm ICE. Repeal, rescind, and revoke the authority of ICE agents to carry firearms. ICE does not need firearms to perform administrative arrests for deportation.
Contact your Congressman and demand ICE be disarmed. Disarming ICE will not interfere with the agents performing their assigned duties.
Since they operate in packs of six or ten maybe one of the ten can carry a gun and the others not. The one in the group with a gun can be the designated shooter. The rest can point at the protester they want eliminated because he or she was filming them or as Bovino says assaulting them. .
Or maybe, just maybe, local authorities could cooperate with ICE and work to keep protesters separated from them so they can enforce federal law.
But of course that would decrease the chances of someone being killed so progressives will never stand for that.
How is that possible when ICE arrives unannounced and randomly targets people. These are obviously not planned raids against specific individuals. ICE has been going on fishing expeditions.
The least informed people are local law enforcement. The protesters are better informed about ICE's random movements because there are thousands more protesters than police.
The desired cooperation between Federal civil agents and local law enforcement requires two-way communication. ICE can't just go in a randomly chosen neighborhood and expect local law enforcement to show up.
Every raid is planned with the names and pictures of those they are looking for.
Of course they arrive unannounced. Why would you tell the world where and when you will be at an illegal criminal's residence, to give that criminal a chance to escape.....unless that is what one wants.
" ICE can't just go in a randomly chosen neighborhood and expect local law enforcement to show up."
They can when local police have been told to not help ICE.
Let me ask you this.....
Why is there no other city in the country experiencing the violence against ICE like Minnesota is, even when there are thousands of ICE agents spread out all over the country.?
That is incorrect. ICE has adopted the tactic of general sweeps. ICE is essentially parachuting into residential areas and sweeping city blocks. ICE is not coordinating with local and state law enforcement to conduct these sweeps. Local law enforcement typically does not know an ICE operation is underway before 911 calls begin coming in.
If local and state law enforcement is not going to be informed then the complaint is nothing more than politics. And that politicizes the entire operation. These political tactics are incompetent, unprofessional, and, in some cases, unlawful.
There are no state-wide sanctuary laws in Minnesota. None, zip, zilch. Federal jurisdiction and local jurisdiction are completely different. Local police cannot be directly involved with ICE in an operation because that would require commandeering local law enforcement which is unconstitutional except in cases where martial law has been declared.
So the claim that local police have the ordered to not help ICE needs more substantiation than statements by political appointees who are not on the scene. Back up the claim with real data and real facts. Local and state law enforcement really have been providing crowd control when they are aware it is needed. Since the George Floyd incident Minnesota law enforcement have been trained to utilize deescalating techniques and less confrontational methods of crowd control.
Don't blame local law enforcement for being better trained and more profession than Federal ICE agents. Some of what has been shown in news reports raises question about whether the ICE agents were trained at all.
What cities are those? At present Minneapolis is the largest ICE operation with the largest deployment of armed Federal forces in the country. ICE has adopted more aggressive, violent, and unlawful tactics in Minnesota. The latest tactic of warrantless entry into homes is blatantly unconstitutional. Why is it surprising that ICE using violence to intimidate would result in more violent resistance?
Not true. There are videos of ICE agents berating crazed loon leftists for giving specific criminals a heads up they are in the area, one in particular, a child sex offender. They know who they are looking for and know where to find them after extensive investigations into where they live, work, etc. Minnesota governor and Minneapolis mayor have both specifically said they will not work with the feds to get illegal criminals out of their state/city.
"These political tactics are incompetent, unprofessional, and, in some cases, unlawful."
Exactly which ones have been unlawful? The rest is just your opinion.
"There are no state-wide sanctuary laws in Minnesota. None, zip, zilch"
Did not say there was. I said the governor and mayor have both said they will not cooperate with the feds. That makes Minnesota a default sanctuary state when the state leaders say they will not look for you and they will not hand you over to the feds if you are in their prisons.
"Local and state law enforcement really have been providing crowd control when they are aware it is needed."
Show where that has been done when ICE is concerned. There is a video circulating of the Minneapolis police chief and about a dozen of his boys running away from mob of rioters. They have no intention of helping to protect ICE when ICE is trying to do their Congressional given duties.
"At present Minneapolis is the largest ICE operation with the largest deployment of armed Federal forces in the country. "
How do you know that? The number would be much smaller if local officials cooperated with ICE and the feds did not have to deploy additional agents to fend off rioters and protect each other from rioter harm.
That's another claim that needs substantiation. Where have Walz and Frey made such statements? Frey doesn't even have any authority over the state Dept. of Corrections.
Have 3,000+ armed Federal agents been deployed to Minneapolis just to score political points? ICE is generating so much fodder to be used against Republicans during the midterm elections to raise questions about the effectiveness of the politicization of ICE.
Paul Schnell knows a hell of a lot more about the Minnesota Dept. of Corrections than any Republican talking head. And Schnell pointed out that ICE and the Trump administration are lying.
That would violate the constitution.
Please explain how crowd control violates the constitution
The AGs of DC, IL, CT, DE, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA argued in 2024 that there's no 2A right to carry guns at "events involving political speech, like political
The problem is not protesters carrying firearms. ICE is abusing it's authority to carry firearms to kill citizens using the pretext of a legal technicality. ICE does not need firearms to enforce civil immigration law. Disarming ICE will not impede the agency's ability to enforce immigration law.
An illegal may have come across the border and that makes it a civil offense, however, that illegal may have killed someone while in the country. Do you want them to try and apprehend a known murderer without protecting themselves?
Someone who may have killed someone has transformed into a known murderer within the space of 2 sentences? ICE has an opening for you.
That's a state law violation and under the jurisdiction of local and state law enforcement. State law would require the individual serve time as punishment for a crime committed in that jurisdiction. ICE assuming jurisdiction and failing to prosecute the felony crime circumvents the entire basis of judicial law. In those instances, ICE is assuming the role of the court which violates Constitutional guarantees concerning adjudication of crimes.
I want law enforcement with the proper authorization and jurisdiction to apprehend felons and deliver them to courts to receive punishment as the law prescribes. If ICE has such information then ICE should inform law enforcement in the jurisdiction where the felony occurred. I do not want bounty hunters who do not have authority to make arrests for felony crimes under state law intervening and letting the criminal off the hook. That's unfair to the victims of the felony crime.
Wrong. Immigration is solely a federal jurisdiction.
Remember when there were millions of illegals crossing the Rio in Texas during the Biden years? Texas tried to stop it (they crossed into Texas) and the Biden admin sued stating Texas has no jurisdiction into any immigration laws. Florida was told the same.
If what you stated was true, Texas would have been able to do essentially what they wanted with illegals crossing into that state and completely left the federal government out of it.
Who the fuck is Rob Romano and when the fuck did X become a bastion of 'worthy' quotables?
It's a link to the court filing. Does documentary evidence offend your sensibilities?
I can remember all the "tea party" patriots showing up in open carry states at polling places or near rallies when Obama was running.
There were J6 violent rioters that were carrying guns, other makeshift weapons attacking the United States Capitol along with Trump flags, American flags dishonored dragged around using those flagpoles to attack and beat the Capitol police guarding the American Capitol and protecting all of our duly elected representatives.
Yet none of the Capitol police shot those thousands of rioters and only one person was shot who breached the police line and tried to to enter the chamber where police were guarding elected representatives. The woman who shot in this violent mob at the Capitol is held up as a martyr.
While we see this new army invading American cities and shooting white Americans for even observing or protesting this invasion of their cities and neighborhoods.
No one on the right that has screamed about increasing gun ownership seems the least bit worried that a white man with a legal gun permit who was disarmed, pepper sprayed and shot in the back for showing up and protecting a woman knocked down by ICE.
How can shooting an unarmed white woman in the face multiple times, shooting a white man in the back who had a legal gun permit in a holster be considered FREEDOM?!?
Obama was never coming for your guns, neither was any Democrat.
Trump is coming for your guns, he is hoping this would fan the flames of division so he can make sure NO ONE whether left, right or center will Gadsden flag him the way he encouraged violence at J6 or against "blue states, "blue cities". The right is failing to grasp that Republican voters live in those states and cities too! There are many videos of Republicans in shock being interviewed by local reporters who got caught in the invasion of their neighborhood. Shock.
Trump didn't just start at the Capitol with this nonsense without sending the message the right just can't grasp. Trump no longer wants a free America, just a compliant one.