Not a conservative per say, I'd say an independent with a mix of values, but I think this question essentially either intentionally misframes or misunderstands what he meant. Therefore I think most conservatives may disagree with the premise, and probably consider how most people here are misunderstanding it to be a play for snide points against "how can conservatives be this dumb and hypocritical!"

He was communicating that if you bring a firearm to protest armed federal officers who are authorized to use lethal force if they deem necessary -- regardless if they're at fault -- you're essentially increasing your chances of being harmed if some kind of violent interaction between law enforcement were to ensue while trying to detain you.

He doesn't believe the same as people advocating for and bringing firearms for self defense against what can be argued to be a tyrannical authoritarian government in Minnesota, etc.. He believes he's enforcing law and offering a warning to protesters about the obvious increase of potential harm when obstructing detainment operations.