When Liberals Face the Gun Rights Question They've Been Avoiding

When Alex Pretti was shot 10 times in the back on a Minneapolis street, American progressives faced an uncomfortable question they'd been avoiding: What happens when a legally armed citizen is killed by federal agents — and you've spent years arguing civilians shouldn't be armed?

What Happened in Minneapolis

The sequence of events was stark. ICE agents were attempting to arrest a woman on the street when Pretti, legally carrying a concealed weapon, intervened. He tried to help the fallen woman to her feet, was pepper-sprayed and thrown to the ground, then shot 10 times in the back while motionless.

The video reveals something crucial: after the first shots, agents moved backward, creating distance. Pretti was down, not advancing. Then they continued firing into his motionless body. Five seconds. Ten rounds. If you shoot, you know five seconds is an eternity — this wasn't split-second panic.

The administration's response was telling. They described Pretti's standard Sig P320 as a "military-style pistol" and treated his spare magazine as evidence of terrorist intent. But carrying extra magazines is basic prudence — magazines are common failure points.

The Progressive Contradiction

Tyler Austin Harper, a liberal Atlantic writer who carries concealed, calls this a "Second Amendment wake-up call." His logic is uncomfortable but clear: "When liberals insist we're sliding toward authoritarianism, then simultaneously advocate disarming civilians in the states they control, I find that inconsistent."

The math is simple. If there's even a 10-15% chance of authoritarian drift, would you rather be armed or unarmed? If the answer is armed, then you should respect the legitimacy of civilian gun ownership.

Harper didn't set out to be a culture warrior. He's got a PhD in comparative literature, writes about climate change and higher education. But after 18 months of carrying daily due to increased threats, he felt compelled to speak up as someone who actually carries.

How Guns Became Right-Coded

There's nothing inherently conservative about the Second Amendment. Gun rights became right-coded through demographic drift. The Democratic Party's base shifted urban, professional-class, highly educated. Gun ownership skews rural and working-class.

As these communities felt culturally alienated from the Democratic Party, gun politics became a proxy for broader cultural divides. But the Second Amendment's core purpose — preventing government tyranny — isn't partisan.

The Hypocrisy Revealed

This incident exposed hypocrisy on both sides. The same conservative ecosystem that celebrated armed militia occupying state capitols suddenly acted horrified at an armed protester. Many who praised "Second Amendment remedies" fell silent when the victim held different political views.

But liberals aren't immune. They rage against federal overreach while remaining uncomfortable that the victim was armed. The administration that campaigned on protecting democracy now sounds like caricature gun-control liberals when guns are in the "wrong" hands.

Signs of Shift

Yet something's changing at the grassroots. Harper reports friends who never considered guns asking to go shooting, asking what they should buy. "People are scared. When you see armed federal agents acting lawlessly, abstract arguments become concrete."

This isn't just partisan positioning. There's a longstanding anti-federal strain in gun culture — people who grew up hearing about Ruby Ridge, Waco, federal overreach. For many, this confirms old suspicions about government power.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Harper's advice to gun-curious liberals is practical: "Go to a range. Take a lesson. Even if you leave thinking 'I hate this,' at least your position will be informed by experience rather than abstraction."

He acknowledges the nuance in authoritarian concerns. Trump himself might be more grifter than fascist, motivated by money, ego, and power as spectacle. But elements of MAGA are genuinely authoritarian, and serious ideologues can use Trump as a vehicle.

"The danger is that he doesn't care as long as it serves him," Harper explains. "He's not sitting there reading Carl Schmitt. But the Stephen Millers of the world are deadly serious."