To be abundantly clear about my position, just in case there's any ambiguity or confusion.
I'm on the side of the people who wrote the Second Amendment, and I've read what they've said about it. When the anti-2A people make the statement that the founders and the framers weren't talking about the guns we have today, and think that that's a great argument, I scoff. Yeah, they didn't imagine AR-15s in the late 18th century; but, if they had fought the revolution in the late twentieth century, you bet your ass that they would have unambiguously supported the right of the people to have M-16s.
Gun grabbers try to use the term "weapons of war" while getting it factually wrong. Still, yeah, when we fought the Revolution, muskets, bayonets, and cannons were weapons of war. Despite what Biden said, yes, civilians owned cannons. To this day, civilians own cannons. Hell, a bunch of the cannons used in the film Gettysburg were brought by reenactors.
The funny thing is that there are handfuls of people who called us all nuts to think that we could resist the government, or that our government could become authoritarian, and kept telling us that only the government should have certain weapons -- until Trump got elected. Some people have seen the reason to have a gun since that event, which is good, even though it's usually laced with some blatant hypocrisy. There was even an article in NPR about Oregon's bill 114 about how LGBTQ+ people are concerned that the bill would keep them from having guns.
Even though a lot of people cook the books on police-related violence to make it look worse than it is in this country, some people are realizing that a stormtrooper with a gun is scarier than me. During the course of the 20th century, world-wide, you were three times more likely to be murdered by a government than a private citizen -- that's excluding wars.
The anti-2A movement has to lose, and I think it will ultimately lose. The pro-2A side just has to stop being so damned respectful. We have to stop giving the fucking POTUS the benefit of the doubt when he couples his lackluster support for the Second Amendment with verbal ejaculations like how it's sick that we want semi-automatic guns, and that a 9mm bullet can rip your lung out. He clearly just wants to ban guns. He probably doesn't know why a double-action revolver isn't considered to be semi-automatic; so, he's probably planning on coming after Snappy, too.
We have to realize that the only tactics that they have are vagueness and flat out lies. The reason why they'll never definitively say what laws they want to be satisfied with is because they're never planning on stopping. We have to call a spade a spade in regard to the media barely ever reporting on defensive shootings, even though they're more than three times more common than mass shootings -- they're lying by omission. There's a reason why so many people believe that mass shootings only happen in these united States, even though we're not even in the top ten -- there's a lot of coordinated lying.
You may think that my views on guns are nuts; but, at least I'm open and honest about it. Come at me, if you'd like. I haven't met a single person on the anti-2A side who has been both educated on the issue, and honest.