TRUMP TURNS ON GUNS, MAGA IN SHAMBLES

When defending federal force matters more than defending the Second Amendment

Before we get into it: if you’re receiving this via email, thank you. You’re already subscribed. If you’re not, now is the time.

Trump’s sudden hostility toward guns tells you everything

Donald Trump appears to be turning on guns, and the reaction from his own coalition has been swift and furious. The NRA is unhappy. Gun rights activists are angry. MAGA media figures sound genuinely confused. A Republican president telling people they cannot “just walk around with guns” was not on anyone’s bingo card.

The confusion dissolves once you understand what actually changed.

Trump did not discover a new concern about public safety. He did not rethink the Second Amendment. He did not experience an ideological conversion. He responded to a problem threatening him politically and reached for the quickest available deflection.

That problem is the killing of Alex Pretti.

Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents during an immigration enforcement operation. Video shows him filming agents and attempting to help a woman who had been shoved to the ground. Federal officials immediately moved to reframe the incident, portraying Pretti as dangerous and suggesting that his possession of a firearm justified lethal force.

Trump is trying to escape

That framing created tension inside Trump’s coalition. Gun rights absolutism does not coexist easily with the idea that carrying a gun makes someone a legitimate target for the state. The contradiction forced Trump to choose between defending gun culture and defending his enforcement apparatus.

He chose himself. Shocking.

Blaming civilian behavior shields federal agents from scrutiny. Shielding federal agents shields the administration. Once responsibility shifts away from state violence, the deportation and enforcement campaign remains intact. That incentive explains Trump’s rhetoric far better than any discussion of constitutional philosophy.

Trump has never governed by principle

This is the core misunderstanding many supporters still cling to. Trump does not operate from a stable belief system. He responds to incentives. He adopts positions that protect him in the moment and abandons them when they stop serving him.

That pattern is not new.

Trump’s religiosity appeared exactly when evangelical voters became politically useful. His abortion stance shifted once Republican primaries demanded it. His relationship with free speech changes depending on who is speaking. His view of law enforcement depends on whether officers are protecting him or holding him accountable.

Guns follow the same logic.

When firearms are carried by rural conservatives signaling loyalty, they represent freedom. When firearms complicate a narrative involving federal agents killing a protester, they become unacceptable. The distinction has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with power.

That reality is now colliding with the beliefs of Trump’s most ardent supporters.

Gun rights groups are correct about one thing: possessing a firearm is not a crime and carrying a gun does not make someone a terrorist. If those principles collapse the moment the state feels threatened, then they were never universal rights. They were permissions extended selectively.

Trump’s comments make that selectivity visible.

The rights he champions apply reliably to people he views as allies. For others, those same rights become conditional, suspicious, or dangerous. The Constitution, in this worldview, functions as a political tool rather than a constraint on power.

Why MAGA is unraveling

This explains why MAGA is fracturing over Trump’s statements. Many supporters believed the rhetoric. They believed gun rights were foundational rather than instrumental. They believed loyalty would protect them from becoming targets of state suspicion.

The killing of Alex Pretti exposed the flaw in that belief.

When Trump faced a choice between protecting a civilian exercising a right and protecting agents acting in his name, the decision was immediate. There was no hesitation. The narrative adjusted. The talking points changed. Yesterday’s absolutism became today’s liability.

That shift feels like betrayal to people who assumed ideology mattered.

It never did.

What Trump is really telling gun owners

Trump’s politics revolve around grievance management and self-preservation. Positions exist to be deployed, discarded, and redeployed as circumstances require. Consistency is unnecessary when loyalty and fear do the work.

What gun owners are hearing now is not a reversal. It is clarity.

The message is simple, even if it is unsettling. Rights remain secure when they serve power. They become negotiable when they threaten it.

And that reality is costing Trump something he rarely loses so casually: belief.

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.