excellent postGun control may be about government control to the politicians supporting it. But the problem is, it really _is_ about public safety, in the minds of people like my wife's Aunt. They want a society where people don't get shot. And they really think countries like Japan are examples of where somebody "got it right," and figured out how to legislate peace and safety and pacifism into real-world existence...by technocrats simply passing the right laws with the right language.
Good post. Without being overly deep, I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and followed the opposite path of you. I was not a gigantic Reagan fan. My family came from coal miners who spent much of their lives in "company towns" being paid with scrip books (until the post-WW2 "factory economy" of the North gave them an escape route). Until WW2, the Republican party of Warren Harding was interested in things like sticking up for coal companies and crushing miner strikes. WW2 changed the Republican party and turned it into a Big Government party, which just had different "big government priorities" (eg. foreign policy intervention) than Democrats. Ronald Reagan put a different face on the party, and attracted "New Deal Democrats" into the fold*. The illusion was that Reagan was small government personified. But the Party of Reagan was not a small goverment party. It combined the interests of Big Government New Deal Democrats with those of Big Government "I like Ike" Military Foreign Policy Interventionists, and tried to "fake" a small government facade onto the front of that. In reality, we have to understand the "Reagan Revolution" would never have been possible without the New Deal Democrats he attracted to the party. Reagan cobbled together a lot of Big Government enthusiasts from both sides to create his winning coalition, and without those people on board, you're right back to the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover GOP of the 1930s. And that idea-set is not able to win elections in the post-WW2 era, which (I think) is a big part of the Republican Party's problem right now. It's trying to put a Calvin Coolidge policy-set in front of Republican voters who were raised on the big government aims of the New Deal and The Cold War. It's dusting off a type of Republicanism that has been locked in the basement since the 1930s - crushing coal miner strikes and keeping corporations firmly in control of common people's economic lives - and putting a modern "spin"on that with regard to Free Trade and Immigration - and selling it to people against a Democrat Party who is offering people all the Free Sh.t in the world. And they're losing. People don't want to go back to a George Will pre-WW2 1930s vision of America where less than 40% owned their own home, most people paid rent to a landlord until they were too old to work and had to move in with relatives, and the majority of Americans died penniless. And widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq War then peeled even more Republicans off the coalition Reagan put together.
Ronald Reagan Republicans believe World War 2 made America great.
Calvin Coolidge Republicans believe World War 2, and the social changes it brought about, destroyed most of what was previously great about America.
See the difference?
There is a real rift there. And it is coming back into view clearly, after being hidden for most of our lifetimes. I would bet many so-called "conservatives" are not even aware of this factor, or the historical underpinnings of it.
I say all this, to say - the Republican Party is not a party of individual liberty. At least not since WW2. It is a party that believed on putting Big Government spending behind the "right" priorities - which were simply the opposite of what Democrats wanted to spend it on. As such, the Republican Party is not in any way aligned with Pro-Choice ideals on abortion...never was, never could be. Its Libertarianism is limited to the Milton Friedman type that benefits corporations - not individuals. They will let you keep your guns, up to a point, as long as it doesn't hurt their donors' pocketbooks too bad. But their real game is crushing miner strikes (old school), or importing a low-wage immigrant underclass to undercut wages of those already here, and offshoring good factory jobs to hell-hole countries with cheap labor (new school).
On social issues, they very much want to impose their values on others. The Ohio Referendum is the perfect example. Outside of guns, there really is no "individual liberty" basis in the Republican Party, which would not be better described as a platform of letting corporations do whatever they want...with some trickledown benefits to ordinary people (until and unless the Oligarchy figures out how to undercut those if it affects their bottom line too much).
On guns, specifically the Parkland incident you mention - what do you believe is wrong with the Republican position as regards school shootings? What should they change? Should they be more open to AW restrictions? There is another thread right now, about a 2018 Noblesville school shooter who is up for release to his parents' supervision, which perfectly summarizes (I think) the differences in the Republican and Democrat positions on school shootings. Here is an individual who is probably going to end up shooting people again, if released. But our compassionate society likes the idea of rehabilitating people. So I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that.
(*Yes, I realize he fired the Air Traffic Controllers early in his presidency, to pay homage to the Milton Friedman wing of his party. I think this is properly viewed as a one-off event designed to shore up his credibility with the Libertarian Economic Wing of the GOP).