Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?
Because, some of them are people, too??
Seriously, I think it's dependent on the individual, what "gun control" they support, and the degree they support it, and how much you feel they are wrong, and if they are malicious, or just misguided.
We have people who think any kind of regulation or restriction at all, is wrong. I do agree that's what "shall not be infringed" means. We have people who are unhappy with what we currently have, but recognize the reality that we are here, and there's not much to be done about that, and we must resist going any further.
We have people who support certain restrictions in principle but not what results in practice. And we have people who support certain things because the principle sounds reasonable, and don't know "the rest of the story".
And probably dozens of variations on that.
I support a degree of gun control, but not what most people think. I'm an "after the FACT" kind of guy about this. I think people who have proven themselves incompetent, or have proven a deliberate intent to harm others (by having done so) should not be allowed to possess weapons. I also happen to think they should not be allowed physical freedom.
For an example;
A true "shall not be infringed" point of view must support allowing convicted felons to own guns. AFTER their "debt to society" is fully paid.
We used to do that. We stopped doing that in 1968, and created (essentially) lifetime prohibited person status. Was that wrong? Technically, with a "shall not be infringed" in any way point of view, then yes, it was wrong, It was unconstitutional. Most people today don't think so, and no court seems to think so. I think it was wrong because it was done as a blanket prohibition. I think such things (legal restriction of rights) should be done as a case by case thing. Unfortunately doing that takes effort, time, and MONEY, and the govt decided to take the simple, easy and cheap route to "do something".
Many people support the idea of background checks. On the surface, how can it be harmful?? but they don't know, don't understand, and some don't care about what lies beneath.
And most of them don't understand the basic flaw relying on background checks carries with it (and I'm not talking about the insult of "prove your innocence") which is it only checks RECORDS and not people.
Why is it that these same people see the warnings about buying stocks, that "past performance is no guarantee of future behavior" and think, well, yes, that's just common sense, but completely ignore that when it comes to people and their past performance??
would I help out the guy who has a problem with his deer rifle or his duck gun or his handloads who doesn't happen to think people should own "assault weapons"? (I refuse to call them "Fudds" because Elmer NEVER pushed any kind of gun control)
Its a yes and no thing. Yes, I'd help them, if, no matter what their personal opinion was, they kept it to themselves and did not try to force it on anyone else. There's a lot of guns I just don't like. I don't, and won't own them. But I will NOT be telling you, or anyone else that you shouldn't be allowed to own them. If that guy asking for help is doing that, then he won't get any help (and very little sympathy) from me. Ever.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the wrong ones. It is when you move from having a personal opinion to becoming an activist, forcing your opinion on others that I draw the line between acceptable and not.