3 ms·

> Conservatives do support the individual freedom to own a gun, though. For individuals of a certain phenotype. Which is funny, right? Their whole justificatio

> Conservatives do support the individual freedom to own a gun, though. For individuals of a certain phenotype. Which is funny, right? Their whole justification was to fight back if the government becomes authoritarian, when it turns out they love an authoritarian government that enforces their values.

lapcat 1y ago
There're more than one justification given. Gun rights supporters, like the Republican party itself (and the Democratic party too, of course), are a coaltion of different interests, and not all self-described convervatives would consider gun rights to be an important issue. Some people support gun rights for self-defense, others for hunting. Really it's only the wingnut conspiracy theorists who are silly enough to believe that they could successfully fight back against the modern militarized state. Hunting is very much a cultural issue, passed down the generations by family tradition, so you'd be hard pressed to change minds on that.
- watwut 1y ago
  That does not pass the smell test. If the issue was hunting, they would be fine with restrictions on non hunting guns, background checks etc. Hunting is a sound good excuse.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    Keep in mind that politicians receive funding from the military-industrial complex and other lobbying groups, so they don't necessarily represent the interests of their constituents.
    - watwut 1y ago
      Except those constituents punish politicians and opposite party when those go against guns lobby. This is not a case of politicians going against what their constituents want.
      - lapcat 1y ago
        That's not how money in politics works. Besides, among the issues that are most important to voters, guns are rarely among them.
        JCattheATM 1y ago
        Legislating them is important, most people with empathy would like the mass shootings to stop, but there are plenty of selfish people without it who don't see it as a problem.
tombert 1y ago
They've even tried to intellectualize dictatorships by rebranding it as "unitary executive theory". They surround it with philosophical reasoning but it fundamentally boils down to "the president should be able to do whatever he wants guys!!!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

lapcat 1y ago

There're more than one justification given. Gun rights supporters, like the Republican party itself (and the Democratic party too, of course), are a coaltion of different interests, and not all self-described convervatives would consider gun rights to be an important issue. Some people support gun rights for self-defense, others for hunting. Really it's only the wingnut conspiracy theorists who are silly enough to believe that they could successfully fight back against the modern militarized state. Hunting is very much a cultural issue, passed down the generations by family tradition, so you'd be hard pressed to change minds on that.

watwut 1y ago
That does not pass the smell test. If the issue was hunting, they would be fine with restrictions on non hunting guns, background checks etc. Hunting is a sound good excuse.
- lapcat 1y ago
  Keep in mind that politicians receive funding from the military-industrial complex and other lobbying groups, so they don't necessarily represent the interests of their constituents.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Except those constituents punish politicians and opposite party when those go against guns lobby. This is not a case of politicians going against what their constituents want.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      That's not how money in politics works. Besides, among the issues that are most important to voters, guns are rarely among them.
      - JCattheATM 1y ago
        Legislating them is important, most people with empathy would like the mass shootings to stop, but there are plenty of selfish people without it who don't see it as a problem.

tombert 1y ago

They've even tried to intellectualize dictatorships by rebranding it as "unitary executive theory". They surround it with philosophical reasoning but it fundamentally boils down to "the president should be able to do whatever he wants guys!!!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory