Ban alcohol and drugs they kill waaaay more.
Actually, I'm okay with that, but the Government was never granted power over what any person consumes, at least not in the Constitution.
It isn't your lack of desire to own the same things which appeal to me that I find distressing, far from it. Freedom is about living as you please, while embracing responsibility for it, and not interfering with other's rights.
It's that willingness expressed (correct me if I am wrong) to throw the parts and parcels of freedom that do not particularly interest you to the wind, precisely because you do not want them for yourself. The shooing sports embrace an incredible number of disciplines, and the tools to engage in those, from matchlock muskets state of the art long distance shooting platforms, and even some which were once legal to order through the mail which have since been declared "destructive devices" or restricted in other ways.
During the "Assault Weapon Ban" debates of the 90s there emerged a group of firearm owners who decided as long as their particular arm of interest was not in jeopardy, other groups of firearms could be sacrificed on the altar of compromise. Essentially, they practically interpreted the Second Amendment to be about hunting, and no arm they saw as not being particularly useful in that regard was useful to them. They'd gladly sacrifice the vacuously defined "assault weapons" so long as their guns of interest were not involved. Hence, the name "Fudd" (as in Elmer, huntin' wabbits), was applied, and at least for a time, it stuck, a mild pejorative for those who would give up whole classes of firearms to ridiculous legislation to retain their firearms of interest. The fallacy being, of course, that the gun grabbers would not stop there, and eventually would ban them all.
Nope, I will take issue with that stance, because it is all of us standing together that ultimately gives us the best chance of resisting the efforts of those who would disarm us all, whether it be piecemeal or in one fell swoop. I am not content with shaving off bits of a fundamental Civil Right, just to placate those who want all of that Right, and frankly, I am concerned for our mutual welfare that anyone would be.
In no sense do I see that an "Echo Chamber" matter because those principles and Rights the Bill of Rights is meant to protect should be something we all stand steadfast behind, fundamental to the existence of our Republic.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but on those matters discussion and disagreement would certainly arise were any of those rights be ceded
in toto or in part.
It is a pity to see you go, but the freedom to leave is as much yours as the freedom to stay. Fare thee well if you decide to leave.
