I do wonder ... Introduce fear, or just personal interests and does that support go out the window?

Anecdotally, my view of 2A rights completely flipped once I saw police attacking people in their homes and property for no other reason than filming protests.

I used to (naively) think the police and government were generally passive to citizens even when politically differing. It's amazing how quickly the illusion can be shattered.

What's the logic here? How does police brutality and 2A relate?

Police are aggressive and corrupt, so you get a gun, so...?

Why do the police carry weapons when violent criminals are aggressive and corrupt?

I'm a little lost on what you mean.

In my example with fear someone's ideals (freedom of speech) go out the window when they're fearful... I think that's probably a bad thing.

In your case are you saying you changed your mind about something else in the face of fear too? Is that a bad thing?

So you support shooting at the police?

Do you support the police shooting at citizens on their own property?

theyre much less likely to extrajudically execute somebody with a gun, for starters

The family of Philando Castille might disagree with you.

How does that work exactly?

If anything there are tons of examples where the presence of a gun played a big part in the shooting ...

Maybe it depends on how many guns you have? See the Malheur wildlife refuge takeover for instance.

Not all of them avoided being killed ...

In general suppose an armed mob has some level of protection, for a little while, but I'm not sure it is much of a solution.

The study does not claim unconditional behavior or absence of other factors. Merely a correlation between one attribute and another. So if you build a sufficiently extreme scenario then other factors may eventually overpower that preference. But the correlation would still suggest that the threshold at which one would abandon support for free speech would be different.

Yeah I'm not really taking issue with what the study does or doesn't say. More a hypothetical about what happens in a more every day setting.

I've been toying with peoples lack of imagination all my life. The cognitive ability test involves verbal, numerical, abstract and logical tests. Lets call them people with higher disposable income, at least some leisure time and of course head-space. Not very interesting. The opposite however (people with insufficient money, no time for anything and no room in their head) doesn't make a lack of patience with "bullshit" very surprising. (what they perceive as bullshit)

My experiment (more of a stress test) for academics is to debate them in the context of Mathmagics being nonsense (-2*-2=4 ! LOL!), Physics being nonsense (Conservation of energy? So, no universe?), Ufology and alien abduction, flat-earth, Perpetual motion, Water fueled cars, Fomenco's new chronology, More advanced historic civilizations, Forbiding Archeology, Out of body experiences, Near death experiences, Remote viewing, Reincarnation, Royal Rife, etc etc.

I pretend not to have an opinion on those and insist that we should let the evidence speak for it self and let the lack of evidence suspend a conclusion.

For a lot of trained professionals the mere mention of [say] Sheldrake renders them unable to debate.

It isn't a prank, don't mean to troll anyone. It is an exercise in objectivity. History and science are full of truly hilarious stories. It doesn't mean they are unworthy of debate or must be wrong.

The funniest was a NASA guy who first got really angry but when I suggested real space travel requires "impossible" physics, therefore: to dismiss impossible claims out-right is to rule out space travel - by convention. He flipped 180 degrees. A truly impressive feat that I much admire.