Let's talk about Trump's 2A positions.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump's 2A positions.

In a recent video, I noted how Trump isn't quite the advocate for a certain constitutional right that many believe he is. I included some quotes to demonstrate my point. Some really didn't like that, which led to a lot of messages and questions. Uh, if they had only waited a day to send their messages.

Here's one of them. Oh, great job, Belle. You're using quotes from Trump from 2018. It's over 6 years ago. Got anything more recent? You're acting like Trump doesn't want people to have guns. It's disingenuous liberal framing.

Quotes are disingenuous liberal framing, huh? He literally said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second," and he was arguing with somebody who wanted to provide people due process before their weapons were seized by the government. That's not disingenuous framing. It's over 6 years ago. You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, but I would point out it's 2026. Try again on the math.

Got anything more recent? Boy, do I. You're acting like Trump doesn't want people to have guns. On Tuesday, Trump said, "You can't have guns." Okay, full context is that on Tuesday he said, “I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That's a lot of bad stuff.” Later, he was questioned by reporters and said, "You can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns." It's unclear what he thinks Pretti walked into.

So, the question now is, am I acting like Trump doesn't want people to have guns, or did he say that because that's just who he really is? He often falls back to an anti-2A position. It isn't the first time. It's unlikely to be the last.

Another question I'd have for the 2A supporters who really think he's on your side. Can you name any context that could get you to say the things he said? You can't think of any, right? That's because you actually support the Second Amendment. It's not an act for you.

From a political standpoint, how would you feel if a Democratic president waited until after federal forces killed someone and then said, "You can't have guns. I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That's a lot of bad stuff.” It would put you on guard, right?

In fact, you're on guard with Democratic presidents by default because when they're depicted in editorial cartoons and memes on the right, they often have false quotes in speech bubbles, saying the exact type of things Trump has been saying on video for years. Just like the farmers and the ranchers who found out he doesn't really care about them. To the people who thought Trump's deportation agenda wouldn't apply to them. Maybe it's time to consider that he isn't who you think he is.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.

[Warpy]

1. He's a NYC city boy

He hates that anyone outside his family or tight circle of syophants can have a gun. He'll grudgingly allow loyalists in the police to have them but he's still not comfortable with that because he hasn't personally vetted them as being his assets.

IOW, "his people" need guns to defend him so they get to have them. Fuck everybody else. That's entirely consistent for a malignant narcissist.

-----------I don't know why Pretti had a gun and 2 full magazines with him, supposedly in his backpack. The point is that the gun was not in his hand and its presence was no threat to the thugs who were beating a woman he was trying to help. He might have been on his way to a firing range. He might have been threatened by a local pack of street punks. He might have picked up a stalker (one of those job hazards they don't tell you about in nursing school). Maybe he was going to shoot rats at the city dump It doesn't matter, the presence of a gun in a backpack is not a justification for summary execution. The fact that neither FATSo nor his inner circle get s that is very, very telling when it comes to the 2A.

[some_of_us_are_sane]

2. If having a gun on one's person

is a jailable offence, we could INCARCERATE 98 PERCENT of the Republican Party!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. 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.