Trump wages attack on 2nd Amendment: "You can't have guns" - Brian Tyler Cohen

[TexasTowelie]

Summary

Brian discusses the Trump administration's contradictory stance on the Second Amendment following a shooting incident in Minneapolis. The main points include:

The Core Contradiction:
- Trump stated "you can't have guns" and "you can't walk in with guns" at protests, despite being a Republican who previously promised to protect Second Amendment rights
- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that merely bringing a gun to a protest justifies being shot, even though the victim (an ICU nurse) had a concealed carry permit and showed no evidence of brandishing the weapon

The Hypocrisy:
- Trump's current position contradicts his defense of January 6 protesters, particularly Ashley Babbitt, whom he called a "patriot" who was shot while "defenseless"
- On January 6, Trump allegedly ordered metal detectors removed so armed supporters could attend his rally, saying "they're not here to hurt me"

Backlash:
- Pro-gun groups like the NRA and Gun Owners for America condemned the administration's statements
- Even Republican staffers pushed back, noting that lawfully carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected

The Analysis:
Brian argues Trump is "losing everyone on all sides" by attacking the Second Amendment as a Republican, but will continue doubling down rather than admit fault, demonstrating he's operating from weakness rather than strength.

[Norrrm]

1. The Trump administration shot Ashli Babbit....... because she did not obey the police.

and Trump gave her family million$ for it.

[The Roux Comes First]

2. The Sooner They Disavow and Imprison the NRA Leadership Nazis, the Better

That'll be the day, as Buddy sang!

They're still singing their own, copyrighted "fake news" rhyme. Talk about a one-hit wonder.

[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.