When Did Republicans Stop Caring About Gun Rights?

Plus: DHS escalation in Minnesota, Trump loses support on ICE tactics, and how politics influence the Oscar nominations

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

When Did Republicans Stop Caring About Gun Rights?

HD Video Download

This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by special guest Emily Jashinsky, host of After Party, to examine the killing of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis and the Trump administration's shifting narrative about the shooting. The group discusses the Second Amendment and free-speech implications of statements being made by Trump administration officials and the Republican Party's sudden embrace of gun-control talking points, as well as the broader politics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as the administration pushes for escalation while losing public support on immigration.

The panel also discusses the upcoming Academy Awards and how political themes are shaping expectations for the awards season. A listener asks how to show up and protest against state violence while navigating the ideological baggage of left-wing protest spaces.

 

0:00—ICE kills Alex Pretti in Minnesota

20:00—Public support for Trump administration policy

39:07—Listener question on protesting state violence

45:23—The influence of politics at the Oscars

53:01—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Upcoming Reason Events

The Reason Roundtable: Live in Washington, D.C.! February 4

 

Mentioned in the podcast:

"The Second Shooting," by Liz Wolfe

"The Trump Administration Is Lying About Gun Rights and the Death of Alex Pretti," by Robby Soave

"DHS Again Promises a Thorough Investigation of a Fatal Shooting After Prejudging the Outcome," by Jacob Sullum

"Democrats Plan To Block DHS Funding After Minnesota Killing. Republicans Should Join Them," by Eric Boehm

"Leaked ICE Memo Claims Agents Can Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants," by Autumn Billings

"ICE Tells Legal Observer, 'We Have a Nice Little Database, and Now You're Considered a Domestic Terrorist,'" by C.J. Ciaramella

"Vance Goes to Minnesota," by Liz Wolfe

"ICE Demonstrates Why We Need the Second Amendment," by J.D. Tuccille

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• The Outer Worlds 2

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• The Terror, by Dan Simmons

Matt Welch

• Breakdown: 1975

Emily Jashinsky

• Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

---

Comments

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Framing so dishonest even Newsome tried it.

Nobody is saying he didnt have a right to carry you mendacious lying fucks. They are saying don't fucking fight with LEOs if you are.

If any of you ever had ccw training they go over this.

He wasn't shot for solely carrying. It was the whole impeding officers and fighting with them.

Why the fuck is reason choosing such dishonesty?

[Z Crazy]

Its not clear what happened. I keep reading conflicting accounts if Pretti was just protesting on the sidewalk with others and ICE started the confrontation, or if he intervened in an existing confrontation.

But these Reason authors keep choosing the narrative that sides with illegalkind.

[MasterThief]

Longer video shows him walking into the middle of the street supposedly directing traffic and probably blowing a whistle. Kinda hard to tell details when idiots are constantly getting in the way acting erratically and making tons of noise.

[mad.casual]

He wasn't shot for solely carrying.

When did Reason become so loathsome of Republicans that they'd openly skullfuck the corpse of Freddie Gray and shit on any of the good will his spirit engenders in the afterlife?

Oh, wait, 2016. The year they said Ted Cruz opposed liberal values, because they thought he was a bigger threat to the Progressive order than Trump. Now I remember.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

He wasn't shot for solely carrying.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing this. I think the problem is some of the post-hoc rationalizations for the shooting once it became known that Alex Pretti did have a gun. That the shooting was *more* justified *because* he had a gun, with little consideration for what he did or did not do with the gun.

This was compounded by Security Barbie's completely batshit false claim that Pretti BRANDISHED a gun (not true) or Bovino's ridiculous claim that he was there to MASSACRE agents (zero evidence of that). Republicans were using his gun to tell lies and justify otherwise unjustifiable acts.

[ML (now paying)]

What is Jeff is doing here?

1) Narrowing the dispute to motive-laundering
Jeff reframes the argument away from conduct (“impeding officers while armed”) and toward how others talked about the gun afterward. By focusing on “post-hoc rationalizations,” he sidesteps whether Pretti’s actions met the threshold for interference.

2) Straw-manning opponents’ claims
He asserts that critics said the shooting was “more justified because he had a gun,” then treats that as the core error to rebut. That exaggerates many opponents’ position, which was about risk created by fighting LEOs while armed, not mere possession.

3) Isolating one factor to dilute the rest
By insisting the gun was irrelevant unless brandished, Jeff minimizes the totality of circumstances (chaotic scene, physical interference, officer safety protocols) that law enforcement considers in real time.

4) Re-centering on narrative abuse
He pivots to alleged misstatements by officials (“brandished,” “massacre”) to recast the debate as one of propaganda and dishonesty, shifting attention away from Pretti’s behavior.

Bottom line
Jeff is reframing the issue from whether Pretti’s actions justified escalation to whether others rhetorically overused the fact he was armed. It’s a deflection-by-redefinition that narrows scrutiny and relocates blame to narrative framing rather than conduct.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

lol, if your primed rigged ChatGPT session really was legit, it would have recognized both the good side and the bad side of my comment. Strangely enough, your chatbot only has negative things to say. How weird!

ChatGPT seems to think that I "insist[ed] the gun was irrelevant unless brandished", but that's not what I did. I only ever mentioned "brandished" as a lie that Security Barbie told about the incident. But that is what you led your chatbot to think.

This is just more of your gaslighting and sick humor strategy. You simultaneously have a joke at my expense and then try to gaslight me into thinking that it's really just a neutral criticism.

This completely tracks when you would completely lie and gaslight in the past. I admit, you are good at getting people to think your lies are true, since you tell them with such a sense of authority. This is just more of the same of your misanthropic behavior.

Frankly, I wish you would get a better hobby.

[Fu Manchu]

You still haven't watched the video moron. The agents initiated everything against him. They twisted his arm and pepper sprayed him when he was helping a woman up. They dogpiled him as well. At that point, as far as we know, they had no reason to lay a finger on him. Then they triple tapped him in the back at point blank range, then put 5+ more in him as he lay on the ground motionless. Executed by a gang

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Jesus christ sarc. Give it the fuck up. You lie about everything like you did the 5 year old and every other lie the left tells.

Does he resist arrest? Yes. Or. No.

First you defend illegal pedophiles in the other thread then continue to lie about this.

Is this all you do now on your new sock? Just lie about everything?

No wonder you said you sucked with guns and cried when Rittenhouse was found not guilty. You dont give a fuck about the truth.

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

Have you fought with cops while armed yet? Do it sarc!

[MasterThief]

Speak softly and carry a big stick is the operating mindset you should have when carrying. If you're going to be antagonistic then you have chosen to make it a potentially lethal interaction. Officers are carrying due to their job duties. Pissing them off is also retarded.

[Uncle Jay]

"When Did Republicans Stop Caring About Gun Rights?"

Right about the time the democrats thought it would be a good idea to confiscate all firearms from Americans.

[mad.casual]

But not immigrants.

[tracerv]

They're doing the meme! They're doing the meme!

[Use the Schwartz]

Welp, the retarded headline is a great warning not to listen/watch. And I don't care much about what Republicans do or don't. So, good job?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yeah I don't feel like navigating the ideological baggage of Reason editors.

[DesigNate]

Fire KMW.
Move away from DC/NYC.
Hire some actual libertarian writers.

[Vernon Depner]

Who is going to pay them, then?

[Liberty_Belle]

Reagan stopped when the brown people started carrying .

[Z Crazy]

What do brown people have to do with it?

[SRG2]

Correct - the Mulford Act

[Gaear Grimsrud]

When did Democrats start caring about gun rights?

[Longtobefree]

When they realized their plans to take over America would fail as long as there is an armed citizenry.

[SRG2]

Whatabout

[Fu Manchu]

Never, except caring about how they can erode them. But clearly Repubs are selective about their support as well. Carrying while Republican is good. Carrying while Democrat is a capital offense.

[JFree]

When Did Republicans Stop Caring About Gun Rights?

The only purpose of guns is to prevent a government from imposing tyranny. Not to prevent police and other officials from doing the will of God to expel darkies from the land of white wimmins.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

And like most retarded leftists, jewfree screams youre racist... even when a white guy or gal is shot. Amazing.

[Z Crazy]

The blood of Laken Riley calls for vengeance!

[Longtobefree]

"DHS escalation in Minnesota"
Left wing escalation from "peaceful protesting" to rioting would be a better story.
ICE is doing what they always do, arresting illegals; no escalation required.

[mad.casual]

Seriously, you guys had Greenhut with the Gadsden Flag and Tucwille with the "ICE is the reason for the 2A" right before Pretti got shot.

You're the slavemasters cracking the whip on behalf of the plantation owners in order to keep the slaves stochastic martyrs marching along in orderly fashion.

Seriously, you need cheap blueberry pickers working in the field. Smoothie drinkers in the house. Journalists performing legal phrenology lectures to ensure everyone understands the right and just natural order. All so that people like Tim Walz can maintain their trans-Atlantic network.

Meanwhile, actual assimilated immigrants and native born Americans work shoulder to shoulder to fight the chaos you foment in defense of Tim Walz' fraud.

Fuck you.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Aren't the Oscars always influenced by politics?

[mad.casual]

Once again, Reason, the same people that are pro-2A also the law and order, FAFO, actions have consequences, step on the snake and you'll get bitten, play stupid games win stupid prizes people. Just because you've become lawless and libertine doesn't mean they went anywhere.

I know it's hard for people who don't "Ride Free, Shoot Straight, and Speak The Truth" to understand that you don't cosplay, but Ashli Babbitt was unarmed, people charged with nothing but misdemeanors were held for years without trial and you *still* call that, and not this, an insurrection.

Fuck you.

[Incunabulum]

To be clear - Republicans have never cared about gun rights. But at least they haven't spend a century trying to end them.

[Fu Manchu]

Rights don't come from God. They come from Trump. And if you don't support Trump, you don't get any.

[ML (now paying)]

1) Tribal enforcement through sarcasm
His sarcasm isn’t neutral satire; it’s aimed almost exclusively at people critical of Democrats. The mockery functions as a loyalty test: criticism of Democrats is framed as inherently illegitimate.

2) Bad-faith exaggeration to discredit critics
By exaggerating positions (“Rights come from Trump”), he straw-mans critics of Democrats as authoritarian or cultish, even when their arguments are about enforcement standards or civil liberties.

3) Deflection away from Democratic accountability
The jokes redirect attention from substantive critiques of Democratic actors or policies and instead recast the debate as Republicans being uniquely hypocritical or evil.

4) Signal-boosting in-group identity
The Epstein quip and absolutist tone are less about the topic and more about signaling alignment with an anti-anti-Democrat stance and provoking ideological opponents.

Bottom line
Sarcasmic isn’t engaging to clarify or persuade. He’s using sarcasm as a social weapon to punish criticism of Democrats, reinforce in-group boundaries, and derail substantive scrutiny of their actions.

[Fu Manchu]

Still waiting for those Epstein files.

[Minadin]

Well, Patel is completely wrong about the guy's right to carry. Noem made a statement that wasn't much better, too.

https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2015449932363178070

But, based on the backlash to the comment that I've seen online, most people on the Right completely disagree with him.

[Social Justice is neither]

Still not covering the Waltz administration complicity in organizing the escalating violence in the street? No, just more demands that Republicans quietly let violent Leftists murder them consequences free. Sorry cunts but dude violated every rule of responsible carry and chose to escalate the situation to where deadly force was a not unreasonable action. I know you'll demand he be allowed to murder a few officers before you'll consider that there might be a threat in an armed combatant reaching for a deadly weapon, so fuck off you evil Leftist cunts.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I weep when I see people like you, who believe every lie and propaganda that your team tells you, despite having copious video evidence disproving those lies.