They deal in absolutes. Nuance changes things for them in ways they aren't equipped to handle.
Claim: We need to ban guns because if there are no guns criminals won't have guns.
Nuance: Gun bans disarm law-abiding citizens, and do nothing to criminals who will think nothing of buying on the black market.
Result: Gun bans in the U.S. would result in higher crime.
Claim: Women make less than men.
Nuance: Women work fewer hours than men and also tend to pick careers that pay less than the ones men pick.
Result: N/A - They have no solution for this, as equal pay is already law.
Claim: People aren't making enough to live! We need higher min wage/universal basic income!
Nuance: Money is a finite resource. If forced to pay more,
employers will have to reduce staff, or close.
Result: Min wage/UBI fails; results in higher unemployment.
Claim: Walmart doesn't pay their employees enough! The CEO makes millions!
Nuance: The CEO makes ~$22M/year. Walmart employs 2.2M people. Divvying up the CEO's salary equally gives everyone ~$10/year (before taxes).
Their positions (mostly) sound good on the surface, but fall apart quickly when thought is applied.
That, or it's because he encouraged black people to buy guns. Occam's razor, perhaps?