There are "sides" to this issue, but we can't keep it real here, so we just say "they" want to restrict our Second Amendment rights, when we know exactly who "they" are.
If you think you can categorize anti-gunners that easily, you need to do some more research. The fact is that you can find anti-gun and pro-gun persons in virtually any category, ethnicity, demographic or political leaning.
Basically, you missed the ENTIRE point of the article. The point is that we like to think that we can categorize people with labels. The specific point is that many people like to think that gun owners are all pro-gun. That is NOT true--they are "pro-my-gunners", but they can very well be "anti-your-gunners" in the sense that they're only worried about what they owned and are more than willing to own those who own other categories or classes of gun under the bus. There are many gun owners who will turn their back on certain categories in the gun community and either ignore legislation against those categories, or, worse yet, SUPPORT such legislation.
Unless we can deal with these issues constructively, as opposed to trying to oversimplify by applying easy labels and overgeneralizations, we're not going to get anywhere.
We will keep playing pretend here, so I say I am against "they" and "they" better stop it. Make the bad people stop as "they" are bad.
The ones pretending are the ones who believe that it's possible to accurately determine someone's stance on gun control merely by applying a convenient label and/or making assumptions based on other aspects of the person's beliefs and philosophies.
That's the kind of problem the article is trying to defeat by pointing out that we, as gun owners, are actually divided against ourselves, at least in some respects.
These jack booted government thugs can just come and take them by force and prosecute me! (If I survive the raid).
They will NOT come to take your guns, and you will not get the chance to go out in a blaze of glory. You will go out silently, or with a whimper, but the odds of your getting a chance to actually stand up to an LE who is trying to confiscate your guns are almost non-existant.
We can look at what has happened before to see what will happen here if bans are passed.
The laws will be passed and voluntary compliance will be expected. Most will comply, some will not. The ones who do not will not
be actively pursued. It's pointless and dangerous to do so, and it is critical that no line-in-the-sand moments be created that might spur violent, or worse, organized violent resistance.
So they'll just wait for people to get turned in by ex-spouses, careless comments, mistakes, etc. They have time--we don't.
The bottom line is that we will win or lose this battle in the legislatures and at the ballot boxes. If you're willing to die to keep your guns, then you should be willing to write your legislators; join, and donate to, gun organizations; volunteer to support pro-gun politicians; etc.
The problem is that it's easy, it takes no effort at all, nor does it exact any penalty, to talk about what will happen "when they come for my guns" but it takes time, effort and money to do practical things that can actually protect gun rights. So we hear a lot about what's going to happen during gun confiscation but it's much less common to see people working against it right now--when what they do can really make a difference.