Something I realized

Anybody who says, "30,000 people die from guns a year and guns are the reason" doesn't have the goal of banning AR 15.  They have the goal of banning all guns, but they know that position isn't too popular, so they are doing what they can to shift the overton window.  This is what you believe if you are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP) and you don't believe the government would go tyrannical and you want to copy the UK gun culture.

The UK jails people for misgendering online (I've read articles hinting at this that I can't remember), but the left thinks this is justified in the name of reducing the unwanted pain of the trans community.

I don't agree with censorship of any kind, but I can see the logic in it if one is consistent with their AUP morals.

The right wants the 2nd amendment to defend against tyranny, so you figure they would be against getting rid of the constitution and they would vote against anyone who came out in favor of terminating the constitution:

Never mind, they love this guy.

I love the 1st and 2nd amendments (and others; like the 8th and 13th) and I don't like voting for broadly anti constitution candidates.  

The majority of the people that vote for anti constitution candidates don't love the constitution as much as they think they do.

I oppose to all guns except the ones used by government's self defense military.

So the only people who should have guns are those most likely to commit the most mayhem and death? The government and the military are killing machines.

You may think that, but thats irrelevant, since its based on false assumption that someone other than government should have weapons because government is most likely to commit the most mayhem and death.

US citizens have guns, so do Russians, and their governments are not as peaceful as peaceful government of Japan, despite that Japanese citizens have almost no guns.

So one can conclude that giving citizens guns is not exactly a good idea, unless you want more deaths and more civil wars.