I think it’s probably because they view it as trying to weasel around the argument: “I have the right to own a gun, so therefore I have a right to bring it to my kid’s school play. That’s already settled, so all you’re doing by saying there’s some special circumstance is trying to find a way to chip away at my fundamental rights.”
Personally, I blame Abrahamism. It encourages a binary thought process of commanded vs prohibited, rather than a complex and nuanced one based on principle.
