Return to Answer

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though. This doesn't seem polled that often but e.g. in 2018 there was a poll that claimed to

show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal) [...]

Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that [military] sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

As for the Republican side, as it's been noted in the some comments, supporting the right to arms (of anybody) doesn't equal sending them guns "for free". There's a wing in the Republican party (Trump included) that's somewhat isolationist, or at least thinks NATO [and by extension other European] countries should pay [more] for their own defense. That more or less overlaps with the wing of the party that just doesn't consider the war in Ukraine important for the US, say, like it was important to send arms to the USSR during WW2. (It's kind of amazing how cheap war materiel was per unit back then, by the way, even translating to 2022 dollars; for the "equivalent to $143 billion in 2022 [dollars]" the US sent tens of thousand of tanks and aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks/jeeps to the USSR.) Wikipedia writes that the USSR ultimately paid for like 25% of these; the rest of the debt was written off. In another article, Wikipedia also notes that back then:

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 8, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though. This doesn't seem polled that often but e.g. in 2018 there was a poll that claimed to

show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal) [...]

Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that [military] sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

As for the Republican side, as it's been noted in the some comments, supporting the right to arms (of anybody) doesn't equal sending them guns "for free". There's a wing in the Republican party (Trump included) that's somewhat isolationist, or at least thinks NATO [and by extension other European] countries should pay [more] for their own defense. That more or less overlaps with the wing of the party that just doesn't consider the war in Ukraine important for the US, say, like it was important to send arms to the USSR during WW2. (It's kind of amazing how cheap war materiel was per unit back then, by the way, even translating to 2022 dollars; for the "equivalent to $143 billion in 2022 [dollars]" the US sent tens of thousand of tanks and aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks/jeeps to the USSR.) Wikipedia writes that the USSR ultimately paid for like 25% of these; the rest of the debt was written off. In another article, Wikipedia also notes that back then:

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 8, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.

But it also notes that opposition pretty much evaporated after Pearl Harbor.

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though. This doesn't seem polled that often but e.g. in 2018 there was a poll that claimed to

show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal) [...]

Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that [military] sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

As for the Republican side, as it's been noted in the some comments, supporting the right to arms (of anybody) doesn't equal sending them guns "for free". There's a wing in the Republican party (Trump included) that's somewhat isolationist, or at least thinks NATO [and by extension other European] countries should pay [more] for their own defense. That more or less overlaps with the wing of the party that just doesn't consider the war in Ukraine important for the US, say, like it was important to send arms to the USSR during WW2. (It's kind of amazing how cheap war materiel was per unit back then, by the way, even translating to 2022 dollars; for the "equivalent to $143 billion in 2022 [dollars]" the US sent tens of thousand of tanks and aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks/jeeps to the USSR.) Wikipedia writes that the USSR ultimately paid for like 25% of these; the rest of the debt was written off.

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though. This doesn't seem polled that often but e.g. in 2018 there was a poll that claimed to

show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal) [...]

Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that [military] sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

As for the Republican side, as it's been noted in the some comments, supporting the right to arms (of anybody) doesn't equal sending them guns "for free". There's a wing in the Republican party (Trump included) that's somewhat isolationist, or at least thinks NATO [and by extension other European] countries should pay [more] for their own defense. That more or less overlaps with the wing of the party that just doesn't consider the war in Ukraine important for the US, say, like it was important to send arms to the USSR during WW2. (It's kind of amazing how cheap war materiel was per unit back then, by the way, even translating to 2022 dollars; for the "equivalent to $143 billion in 2022 [dollars]" the US sent tens of thousand of tanks and aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks/jeeps to the USSR.) Wikipedia writes that the USSR ultimately paid for like 25% of these; the rest of the debt was written off. In another article, Wikipedia also notes that back then:

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 8, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

"More guns = more violence" may be true in a shooting war as well, but Democrats aren't Quakers. They don't reject use of guns in all circumstances. IIRC domestically Democrats favor the 2nd Amendment interpretation of an organized millia (~~ armed force). In 2008, a rather conservative SCOTUS ruled against this interpretation in a 5-4 vote though. This doesn't seem polled that often but e.g. in 2018 there was a poll that claimed to

show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal) [...]

Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

And Russia also favors "more guns" in that [military] sense, incl. training teenagers early on (ibid). That may or may not translate into encouraging more private gun ownership in Russia, I haven't exactly looked into that matter. And let's not single out Russia here. With the war scare in Europe, a number of countries to the West of it are somewhat following in its footsteps in that (training) regard, with volunteer militias etc. And elsewhere China doesn't encourage much private gun ownership that I've heard of, but is building a lot of missiles, expanding their war fleet etc. So, generically speaking of "guns" can obscure such distinctions.

As for the Republican side, as it's been noted in the some comments, supporting the right to arms (of anybody) doesn't equal sending them guns "for free". There's a wing in the Republican party (Trump included) that's somewhat isolationist, or at least thinks NATO [and by extension other European] countries should pay [more] for their own defense. That more or less overlaps with the wing of the party that just doesn't consider the war in Ukraine important for the US, say, like it was important to send arms to the USSR during WW2. (It's kind of amazing how cheap war materiel was per unit back then, by the way, even translating to 2022 dollars; for the "equivalent to $143 billion in 2022 [dollars]" the US sent tens of thousand of tanks and aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks/jeeps to the USSR.) Wikipedia writes that the USSR ultimately paid for like 25% of these; the rest of the debt was written off.