Boy, the OP sure hit a nerve.
I read him as saying that the polar positions are equally ridiculous (generally speaking, the one pole being a gun ban, the other pole being no restrictions whatsoever on arms) and will never prevail, so that taking one of those positions, either in the personal realm of discussion or in the political realm, renders you irrelevant.
It made sense to me.
Responsible gun owners have, for decades, allowed that the Second does not exist in isolation from the remainder of the Constitution. There will always be that small, vocal minority that wishes for NO restrictions. If you cannot see the incremental advances of the other side, gobbling up the Second over the past 75 years, then you are ill-equipped to discuss finding middle ground for reasonable compromise today
. That day has truly passed.
At what point will you throw out the anchor and say, "No more. This is as far as I go." ?
I cannot shake the idea of similar attacks on the First Amendment. Where would the self-proclaimed protectors of our fundamental rights be on that one? For sure there have been compromises there too, but the reaction is always a groundswell of protest at the very thought. No pleas for compromise? No scolding for not seeking middle ground?
This is not an argument for our hobby, nor is it an argument for no restrictions of any kind. Restrictions abound. It is a principled argument against encroachment on a fundamental liberty guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. No less.