A) Giving up my constitutional rights in the name of science doesn't sound very attractive to me. Would you feel the same way if we were talking about free speech or due process?
<facepalm> That was an analogy. We're not really doing anything for science.
Those 3 things don't compare by the way. For one the constitution is what says you get the right, it is NOT the reason the right is in there. There is a reason for a right being there. When you look at these reasons they are not the same at all. Americans are never going to be able to stop their government with all the guns in the world. If they were allowed to have 50 Cal machine guns and rocket launchers it still wouldn't happen.
My support of gun right is not and has never been about that. You may as well say the 2nd amendment is so you can shoot the ground and launch yourself to the moon because that's about as realistic as the stated purpose.
My support of gun rights is because people should, for the most part be able to do whatever they want. I think people have a right to go hunting, collect guns, go to the shooting range, and all that sort of thing. I can even see self defense although really it should be supplemental as it's no substitute for a security system. It also requires training, and big pair of balls. You need to be able to shoot straight, and you need to be prepared to look someone in the eye and shoot them dead, or shouldn't even draw the weapon, because that's what it might come to.
So if something is causing a safety issue, we might need to think about that.
That brings me to:
Would you feel the same way if we were talking about free speech
Yes, if it is a safety issue. For example, shout "fire" in a public theater, or inciting a riot. Those are not covered by free speech because of safety issues.
So even if these rights did compare, it is not unprecedented to abridge it in the name of safety. It should only be done in situations that extreme though, where people could really be in danger.
We've already had an assault weapons ban that included a ban on high-capacity magazines. It failed.
Actually it was allowed to expire, mainly because Democrats viewed it as the reason for their defeat in 1994, and didn't want anything to do with it anymore.
Whether it worked or failed is debatable. My opinion is the idea may have been ok but ultimately it was flawed. Too much restriction for not enough benefit basically. That's just my opinion though.
Support for gun rights comes largely from gun owners.
You'd be surprised. I don't have any guns, and I'm largely in favor of them. I'm in favor of pretty much the same restrictions you are, like background checks and closing loopholes.
It's just that now I'm starting to think that maybe a little more restriction might be a good idea. So I'm not even reversing my position on any of it, I'm just reevaluating, I'm thinking it's possible I might have been wrong about something like the high capacity magazines. I wouldn't be in favor of banning "assault weapons" though, because nobody even knows what that means. Naming specific things would be something to consider, but only to consider.
So in other words I agree with you despite thinking your arguments are mostly bad. However I am at least willing to consider that I'm not 100% right.