Why are pro/anti-gun parties in the US espousing the reverse position when it comes to weapons for Ukraine? | pressku.com

Per title. It seems that traditionally, Republicans (support weapon ownership successful nan US) for reasons specified arsenic "the only measurement to extremity a bad feline pinch a weapon is simply a bully feline pinch a gun", and they successful wide judge that nan US would beryllium safer if much group carried guns.

But if Republicans judge that, why wouldn't they besides support much guns for Ukraine? After all, nan only measurement to extremity Russia (the presumed bad feline successful nan conflict) is much Ukrainians pinch guns. Even nan not-so-often-articulated logic of "more guns = much backing for nan weapon companies which are backing Republican campaigns" would propose that Republicans should support much guns for Ukraine, since that intends much backing for US gun-makers.

The reverse mobility applies too: if Democrats deliberation nan solution to weapon unit is not much guns, past they should reason sending guns to Ukraine. By nan aforesaid logic they usage to reason that much guns = much violence, they should besides reason that sending much guns successful Ukraine = much violence.

I'm wondering why location is simply a disconnect here. Naively 1 mightiness deliberation Republicans will beryllium nan statement that supports much guns for Ukraine, and Democrats nan 1 that's opposed.