This is a complete derailment of the thread, which is not “the merits of gun control,” but “the merits of the AMA becoming a gun control organization.” I’m therefore not going to debate you on the AMA’s actual proposals on a line item basis. But I do think there’s something worth mentioning.

You, and many others, don’t really understand how many people in the US view the 2nd amendment. I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of what I’m about to describe to you, but to have a debate about this, you need to understand this.

The men who wrote the constitution and bill of rights had just finished fighting a bloody war with an oppressive monarchy, and had won their rebellion by means of armed, partially guerilla, warfare by largely ordinary citizens against one of the greatest armies on the planet. Contemporary writings by the framers indicate that they believed free men should have a right to keep modern small arms in their homes, not only for personal protection, but for the common defense, should it become necessary. Their intent with the bill of rights was not to grant rights to the citizens, but to enshrine what they considered natural, god-given rights and protect them from government encroachment. They believed strongly in the duty of the people to throw off tyrannical governments, through peaceful means if possible, but through armed force if necessary. At the time, very few governments were founded on such a principle.

There are a great many people who still believe in that. Who knows what it would take to get them to commit armed rebellion, because frankly our government is pretty tyrannical already in many ways, but we still enjoy great personal freedoms compared to many other societies. They feel that the right to keep military-grade small arms at home is a god-given right and it shall not be infringed. For a lot of 2A supporters, gun rights have nothing to do with hunting or hobby, and when you say things like “You can still keep your little hobby” or whatever, you are deeply misunderstanding why they feel this is important. It comes off as incredibly disrespectful and patronizing, and hinders dialogue.

Now consider what they see in the news. Horrifying mass murders, many of which are committed in places where guns are already prohibited, and are statistically still extraordinarily rare, are being used as justification to prohibit them from owning the very arms the founders intended them to own - the kind of small arms that soldiers would carry, or rebels.

Add all this up and it feels like a god-given, fundamental citizen duty is under assault, by people who use demeaning language to patronize those who believe in it. They believe that you are betraying a bedrock principle of the United States - that the citizens are entitled to do away with the entire government if they collectively believe it is time. When you attempt to garner support by telling them they can keep their hobby, or that they will still be allowed to hunt deer, you are seen as a wolf in sheep‘s clothing: someone who has no idea of what they are trying to protect, but is attempting to use their language to make an end run around the bill of rights.