I have a genuine question occasioned by the recent shooting and the relation of its consequences with politics

I have a genuine question occasioned by the recent shooting and the relation of its consequences with politics.
Liberals, the left, want gun ban in general (some talk about "gun control" but that would lead to a ban),
while conservatives and the right don't claiming thats it's a mental health issue and not weapon control.
Given the fact that your constitution gives you the right to have weapons to resist a fascist gonverment, surely it would be the far right that would support a supposed coup (and lack of defence for the people) and the communist rebels would need weapons to resist.But…..it is reversed.
The right doesn't want refugees in the USA because they are terrorists, while the left does. When a terrorist attack happens the left says that it was mental problems and not religion, while the right opposes that argument. Here liberals use the same argument as the conservatives in the previous point.

I would appreciate if someone could tell how you end up with so tangled politics?
Disclaimer: I abstain from political games, I am just curious. I will post this in /pol , /leftypol and /polk.

Oh, you'd like to understand, eh?
Well then, you unAmerican, allow me to pontificate for your edification:

The United States of American presently contains 41% of the world's Jewish population.
Israel contians another 41% thereof.
Europe contains a mere 10-12%.
The REST OF THE WORLD - but mostly places with White people, like South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc - contain the remaining 6-8%.

That's why.

Our politics are so tangled, our people so confused and distracted, because we have the largest single concentration of kikes outside of fucking Israel, and anywhere that there are kikes - which you'll notice, are overwhelmingly places where Whites are - there is discord, because Jews sow discord as part of their social survival strategies.
They are an awful, evil, wretched, twisted group of creatures, and the US has more of them than pretty much anywhere else outside of the illegitimate hovel of Middle Eastern Kikeland itself.

See also:

And further:

Your misunderstanding stems from believing the left/right dichotomy follows liberal/conservative ideologies - it doesn't.
In the US "left" means "people who want to end white people." Likewise "right" means "a bunch of cucks who don't want to be ended but at the same time have no balls with which to defend themselves."

False.
"Right" means "a bunch of increasingly-angry/anxious Whites who don't want to be ended but at the same time are kept from knowing the reality of their demographic condition in any significant detail and find that all the people they're able to put into any office of power are, by requisite it seems, cucked or bought-by-Jews, such that they not only will not act to inhibit to ending of their own constituency, but will fight vehemently to aid it, while arguing that such is required via their principles (a set of silly ideals known as 'civic nationalis,' that only functioned as intended under the homogenous White population from whence they derived)".
Example: Trump was elected by a 95% White base, yet he cannot be heard to even say the words "White people" or "White Americans", even as he openly addresses any and all other racial/ethnic groups.
You were pretty much spot-on as goes the left though.

I shall now expand upon a few concepts of import. Saging while I do so.

I can't help but laugh at civic nationalism - its a self-defeating meme.

Look at the US.

We hear civic nationalists talking all about these Constitutional principles that they hold dear.
Freedom of speech. Right to bear arms. Limited government.
Yet these same civic nationalist principles, they claim, demand judgement on the basis of the individual only, not as collectives… Of course, their claims are somewhat suspect, given the men who derived those princples initially were slave owners and created the US as an explicit White ethnostate, but whatever.

The point is, this hyper-individualistic outlook forces them into a cognitive box, limiting the extent of their philosophical-willpower. It does so, in that it forces them to reject judgement in the context of racial groups as a collective, despite races acting as collectives.
For example: Hispanics support gun control (60%+ in favor, 30% against). And hate-speech laws (50%+ in favor, 25% against). And expanded government (70%+ in favor, 20% against). And Hispanics overwhelmingly identify with the left-wing political parties (60%+, increasingly from generation to generation after entry to the country to upwards of 70% by the 2nd generation). AND Hispanics demonstrate an elevated fertility rate relative to White populations in the US (still above replacement levels).

Thus, by upholding civic nationalist principles in judging Hispanics as individuals instead of as a group, many Hispanics would be (and have been) allowed into the country - for example in the amnesty of Ronald Reagan - despite the fact that collectively they do not believe in the principles upon which the nation was founded… Not that they would say as much if attempting to gain entry - deception exists, and civic nationalist arguments as-goes vetting procedures are underwhelming, nevermind the prospect of enforcement of civic values after entry (let alone over generations).

And this last point about enforcement is important, because evidence suggests that, like most ethnic/racial minorities in the US, Hispanics do not demonstrate a collective belief in the civic principles of the US (certainly not to the proportional degree seen in US Whites), but they DO behave as a collective, supporting left-wing political groups in overwhelming majority. Those promoting civic nationalist ideals do not demonstrate the philosophical-willpower to enforce these civic values, have offered no methodology to alter this condition, and all indications suggest they are bereft of such a method - if they were not, the populations which have been in the US for several generations, exposed to the values of the country and civic nationalists' arguments in that vein, would espouse those positions, but they do not.

While on the subject… Why do Hispanics support left-wing groups? Are they actually more left-wing in political view? Yes, but that's not the whole story - they vote as a collective, and they do so to serve collective interests. Left-wing groups in the US are the groups in favor of serving the left-wing predispositions of Hispanics (hate-speech laws, gun control, expanding government with more programs) as well as increased immigration, which they promote loudly, and increased immigration leads to an increase in population for the respective ethnic/racial minority in question, which in turn leads to an increase in the political power, electorally at the very least, wielded by that ethnic/racial minority. Hence, regardless of their political stance, Hispanics support left-wing groups as a collective to serve collective interest. We see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Blacks and other non-Whites.
In fact, we see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Asians, who also primarily support left-wing groups in the US (50%+, increasing generationally), even though polling of their political views suggest they may not actually be left-wing politically - they're merely acting as a collective in serving their collective interest.

Left-wing groups are, for whatever reason (ideology, personal desire for power or wealth, etc), very happy to assist in this endeavor, and in fact, the left-wing political party of the modern US is an amalgam of minority groups acting collectively in their own interest despite an absence of shared political belief betwixt the tribes. They are, effectively, a collective composed of collectives, each acting to serve their own interests, and a great deal of their effort is maintained in securing each individual collective's support and avoiding conflict among those groups where their perceived collective interests conflict. Further, these left-wing groups - aided by left-wing political/social organizations (several particularly influential examples bearing an overt Jewish composition or philosophy) - explicitly advocate for, and support the explicit advocacy of, the respective non-White minority collectives, whilst simultaneously doing everything in their power to silence, slander, demonize and deplatform any and all explicit White advocacy groups through accusation of association with 'racism', 'White supremacy', 'Nazism' and/or 'anti-Semitism', amongst others.

That is to say, the left-wing in the US, particularly the influential Jewish wing, advocates against explicit White advocacy. Which is why no such explicit White advocacy organizations exist in the US today which are not so slandered, and certainly none which exhibit institutional power and perceived legitimacy as might be claimed on behalf of other ethnic/racial groups' equivalents (the latter of which often exhibiting a far more seedy character than the former).
Ironically, this seems to form a neat little circle for the left-wing (especially Jewish) actors: by advocating against White advocacy and White advocates using accusations such as 'racism' or 'White supremacy', Jewish left-wing organizations create anti-semitic sentiment in White advocates and White advocacy organizations, which those same left-wing Jewish organizations then utilize to further slander them through accusation of 'anti-semitism' or 'Nazism'!
Its important to note that the left-wing political factions and their accomplice political organizations in the US also employ such accusations in opposition to any efforts to inhibit left-wing political aims at increasing immigration into the US from non-White sources, promoting globalist multiculturalism and miscegenation, and degrading national borders, even national sovereignty.

The left-wing has been so successful in their efforts in this regard, that the US population demographics are beginning to disintegrate. The White population - the only population which demonstrates anything close to majority support for the ideals which civic nationalists claim to hold most dear - is being displaced.

What conclusion do we reach from such analysis of circumstance?
We can discern that the civic nationalist position is philosophically-unequipped to combat this hazard, in that their civic nationalist ideals demand they make judgements on strictly individual grounds such as to ignore ethnic/racial behavioral trends. They will thus seek to argue in favor of judging a long line of individuals, as individuals, on principle, who can and will present themselves as sharing a belief in the principles civic nationalists claim to seek to uphold if such is required to gain entry to the country, and who will subsequently act collectively in their own interests once in the US such as to create new demographic conditions within the US that are no longer fertile substrate for the individual - and thereby societal - espousal of civic nationalists' proposed ideals.

tl;dr: Non-Whites don't care about civic duties or virtues, they act as collectives to serve collective interests, and civic nationalists do not have any mechanism at their disposal to change, nor combat, this state of affairs, even as they vehemently protest, on the basis of their civic nationalist principles, White advocates attempting such a feat. These civic nationalists are thus demonstrating that they are operating from an obsolete playbook, attempting to espouse civic nationalist ideals of individualism that were only able to be maintained in homogenous White nations bereft of competition from myriad non-White collectives (each serving their own interests), and yet, despite this failure, demonstrable throughout electoral politics in the US (and the West overall) over the last 30+ years, civic nationalists continue to suggest the old playbook is valid. The conclusion is thus that, if civic nationalists are allowed to attempt to carry out their proposed policies in the US, there will cease to exist a substrate for civic nationalists' beloved Constitutional principles and these principles will cease to exist in application in the US. Self-defeating meme.