There's one advantage that an anti-gun Republican has over a pro-gun Democrat.
Let me first elaborate that gun rights in the US are protected via UN-DEMOCRATIC means. Of course, the bill of rights is undemocratic, it lists things that even a majority can't infringe upon.
Sooner or later the pro-gun people have to face that, due to media working upon people who know nothing about guns, pro-gun people, and ultimately the people who oppose confiscation, will be a very small minority, as in Australia. 90+% of people will eventually (strongly) support the buybacks "for the public good".
Even amongst republicans, very few are pro-gun. However, a republican majority with an old southern incumbent can sabotage bills in committee quite effectively. Okay, Orrin Hatch is FAAAAAAAAAR from perfect; but he's a dang sight better than Hillary Clinton when it comes to busting up gun bills in committee.
Again, we are subverting the "democratic" side of it, even though we are ultimately in the right. If the "ban baby-killing guns and save children's lives" bill actually gets in front of people, it's a brave political soul who won't sign it. The trick is to make sure it doesn't come to a vote.
As bad as Orrin Hatch is at times, an anti-gun republican will put him in a position to trash bills before they come to a vote - whatever he's screwed up, it's better than having Feinstein in his place as a pro-gun Democrat would cause.
Don't think every man in the room would not ultimately support a "gun buyback" Australia style. It would have to come after licencing and registration, where a licenced/registered weapon is used to kill a bunch of people, and if you think the outcry from the average person against "guns" is bad just wait until they're demonized a little more. By that stage the NRA will have given up "self defense" as a reason to own guns, and they'll just be appeasing a few bolt-action target shooters.
just my humble opinion,
Battler.