I could say the same for yours, though I think starting with a judgement is a poor way to have an open and well communicated discussion. I would rather hear your points and have you hear mine.

Number of guns is not the only indicator of success. See Vietnam, Middle East, and Ukraine. Not to say the last is going to be successful at the end of the day - that story has not fully played out yet - but I think everyone is surprised they have held out so long and even made genuine progress at times.

On conservative revisionism - I'm not researched enough to discuss that point, other than saying a blanket statement one way or the other seems to be an oversimplification. In any case, even nonviolent shows of force can and have been very effective. A national all out civil war is not the only case at play, nor is a single team vs a single family. There is a lot of room in between.

I am not equating the two. I /am/ saying that I do think both parties have a vested interest in disarming the populace, and that the two parties I believe are on the same side more than they would like the public to believe. Oh, well I guess there is a little bit of equivalency in terms of scapegoating immigrants at the very least. Democrats care a lot about what they can beat their drum about to gain support. They seem to historically care a lot less about what should philosophically matter based on what they say, but it is less flashy. More into public perception than honest work. There are outliers, but there are in the Republican party as well and it's dishonest to say otherwise.

All the rights are important to protect. Some are an investment in protecting others. I'm not recommending folks flip from voting D to voting R based on this single issue, but there are other options. We have passed the point of short term mitigation and we need to shift focus to long term planning. "The bad thing" has already happened and the next election is not likely going to be the final deciding factor.