Good. All restrictive gun laws are an infringement on our natural rights.
And like... there are dozens of restrictive gun laws that rational people should advocate for. Concealed carry should not be available to just anyone; firearms should not be allowed on planes or long-distance public transit, background checks should be mandatory for Uncle Jack buying an anti-materiel rifle, and hunting licenses should continue to be mandatory to prevent overhunting.
Repeating this sort of non-nuanced position is how you get ignored in the grander scheme of gun control legislation
It appears that you seem ill equipped to participate in this conversation effectively if you are unable to discern that the 2A, as well as the other amendments in the bill of rights, are not the source of our rights. They are restrictions on the government that prevents it from interfering or infringing on our natural rights.
Okay. There are also laws that limit your speech on certain topics, but nobody is about to go defend the guy yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. So natural infringement or not, there's not necessarily a demand to overturn all of these laws.
Naturally speaking you're entitled to a great number of things the law stops you from doing, because deterministic change is not inherently a good thing. We prevent unnatural and harmful actions by outlawing the most egregious violations of our right to self-determination. If you're unwilling to adopt a compromising approach to gun control then I'd argue you're ill-equipped to promote change in a liberal democracy.
"...But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago...."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...