It is fascinating to consider how similar the pro-gun and pro-abortion extremists are. Here's INVAR breathlessly shouting "they're coming for our guns!" on the basis of some crank opinion in a Maine newspaper. Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right, so does the pro-gun crowd convince itself that reasonable regulation of firearms is just cover for the true goal of confiscation.
Why is this? The answer's pretty clear to me. As I've explained elsewhere, the natural, individual right to self-defense (that is, outside the context of providing for the civilian militia) isn't protected by the Second Amendment, but by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision. The right to abortion is likewise not codified in the Constitution, but derives from the natural right of privacy as enunciated by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision.
In other words, the right to abortion and the individual right to bear arms are both a product of the same "living Constitution" and just as fragile. How many of us voted for Trump mainly because he promised to appoint conservative justices that, we hope, will overturn the right to abortion? Well, the individual RKBA is just as susceptible to being lost on the decision of some future SCOTUS majority. And the votes we - both right and left - cast for President are ground zero in ensuring the makeup of the courts that will secure the precious rights we fear are most fragile.
It is a situation that is fundmentally poisonous to our nation.
The solution is to amend the Constitution to codify the individual RKBA. Just as I've urged for years that the Constitution be amended to codify the right of privacy. Whatever you may think of living Constitutions, they have the perverse effect of polarizing our political culture. For the left, it's all about saving abortion, for the right, it's all about saving guns. And so the red vs. blue divide deepens, and folks like INVAR call for war.