No. One side is basing their views on facts and reasoning, while the other is basing theirs on belief and rationalization. All that the factual side can do is to make the Believers understand that that’s what they’re defending.
Ironically true. 
Both sides make this claim about their opponents.
Then in all seriousness, more power to you! I totally support this stance. I would be fine with using the process, as it was intended, to eliminate or change the 2nd, if that’s what the people want, and I’m all for folks like you pushing for changing the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens over time to get the votes to do so.
Also, I think you CAN have gun control and still protect the basic right. We have checks on other protected rights after all. As long as you don’t violate the core of the right, I think controls for public safety can be done. I’m less sure about how effective they will be in fixing or even mitigating the ‘problem’, but I think you could craft several that don’t violate the right yet still allow some controls. In fact, we know you can do this, as we actually DO have several, and they are completely constitutional.
As evidenced by the absurd claim in a competing thread that if the 2nd A goes, so do all the other (Penumbral) rights, i.e. abortion, LGBTQ, etc. As if the latter aren’t recently hard won despite conservative resistance, and in many ways still hanging by a thread. All the while the right leaning courts are waving the judicial scissors around, and Trump voters proudly, and without so much as a shred of conscience, proud to claim that this is what they voted for. Gas-lighters, the lot.
The specific Belief is that there is a natural, fundamental, God-given right to gun ownership, overriding any other rights held by anyone else, despite it not being found in any of the world’s major moral or philosophical or theological codes, or even in history before the last few decades. That makes it, as the OP says, inarguable to those who adhere to it.
The Belief for abortion is that life starts at the moment of joining of two cells, going immediately from zero to full, and furthermore takes complete precedence over the life of the woman (or “host body”, as she’s sometimes called). That isn’t in any of the Scriptures its proponents claim to base their belief upon, either.
The Fight Against Ignorance is sadly limited to the ability of “the reality-based community” to get them to recognize and acknowledge what their arguments are based upon. But we have to do what we can.
I don’t think it’s absurd to ask that we take a consistent approach to enumerated rights and emanating rights. Nobody is suggesting infringing on the right to abortion, or anything like that - just some reasonable controls like waiting periods, safety regulations, showing that you can responsibly exercise the right, things like that.
The commerce clause says that Congress can do things like that. I read it on the Internet!
Regards,
Shodan
Right, and no one on this board or elsewhere ever makes a coherent, intelligent argument as to why we may be better of without guns than we are with them.
Generalize much?
Nobody is suggesting infringing on the right to abortion? Nobody??
Is this an example of ‘both sides making equal claims of fact’?
Fucking hell…
Well, out with it then. Is the idea that sovereignty is derived from the governed anachronistic to the left, or isn’t it? Why the wimpy “may” construction to your conjecture? And who exactly are these leftists? Because it kinda sounds like you are accusing these unidentified people of supporting dictatorships. Or what, exactly?
I have this discussion, in various forms, on a fairly regular basis with one of my more conservative friends. At one point, I asked him “What would you do if a properly approved amendment to the constitution was voted in that made it clear that there was no individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment?” His was response was that it would then be time for armed revolution.
Clearly, he is firmly in the “Articulation of preexisting, natural rights” camp. I think, though, that there may be room for discussion about the idea that our Constitution is an attempt to codify preexisting rights, and so the particular language used is (or is not) an accurate translation of an idea into text. At that point, it kind of becomes a question of “Is the natural right that all individual should be allowed to bear arms” or not. This argument should, for the most part, ignore the wording of the Constitution, as the words clearly don’t matter if you take the “natural rights” approach and any shortcoming in the language are just that, and do not represent an actual limitation on the natural right to bear arms.
This would see to make any argument he has that uses the Constitution as a part of his argument moot, since he clearly doesn’t actually care about what the Constitution says, only that he gets to keep his guns.
To which 2nd A defenders would reply, “It’s my natural right to have a gun!”.
I’d be curious to ask the question, if I thought I’d get an honest answer, about whether they would choose revolution if the natural rights of liberty were taken from some identifiable minority of the population.
Ever since I was a kid learning about the Underground Railroad, I’d always thought to myself that, hey, never mind what the law was back then; I sure hope I’d have chosen to do my part — even risking my life — to get those slaves out of there. I guess that was also when I was learning about folks who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany, which also struck me as something worth risking one’s life to do if and when the law comes down on a minority like that. (Am I answering your question right?)
The historical denying of rights to anyone is an embarrassment. At least at the point in history in which revolutions against the established political orders were justified in part by making an appeal to intrinsic human rights.
Now, in the present, I am not sure who is proposing that we as a society should take rights away from women, minorities, or the LG+ crew.
These aren’t disagreement on facts. These are disagreement on opinions and definitions.
It’s derived from the so-called right of self defense. Ultimately, there are NO rights. Only “rights” that we can get others to accept through force or reason.
Not dictatorships per se. But the supremacy of the federal government when the left is in power. 
I think a more applicable question would be “Would you start an armed revolution if an Amendment passed that stated Muslims were not allowed to legally own guns?”
You realize that a key plank of the Republican Platform rejects the definition of marriage that is NOT one man and one woman and seeks to ensure laws and regulations move to define marriage as “one man and one woman”?
I’m fairly certain that is proposing that rights be taken away from gay couples.
Any debate about the 1st Amendment is a waste of time if you already believe that you have the right to your words no matter what you say.
Thanks for your input??
See, this is where you are totally wrong. First of all the Gun grabbers debate from a position of glorious ignorance- and are even proud of it. They dont know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, that a bolt action can be fired just about as fast a a full auto, and the difference between calibres. They want to just ban something, even if they cant define what that thing is.
They also think that the National Gd is still the militia.
Most of the Gun grabbers debates on the 2nd revolve around details of the comma, and what the Militia clause is. They think they have telling, critical , winning points about "well organized’ and a comma and the militia clause- while in reality they just arent Constitutional scholars.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a individual right, and that the right to defend your self, your home and your family has nothing whatsoever to do with the Militia clause, a comma or “well regulated”. So, any debate by armchair amateurs over the Militia clause, a comma or “well regulated” is pointless. The Law and the right to defend your self has moved on. It’s done. It may not be 'dishonest, but it’s pointless. *That ship has sailed *and anyone who thinks the militia clause limits a individual sright to own a gun to defend themselves is being dishonest. **It’s over dude. **
What can be debated?:
Should the Second be repealed? (Not gonna happen)
What limitations can and should be put upon guns after Heller?
That’s a solid debate. See, SCOTUS has said “assault weapon” bans are Ok. So, should we ban assault weapons? What are assault weapons? Would such a ban do anything significant?
There are a number of other things which can be debated under the way the Supreme court has ruled.
But arguing that Heller is a bad decision because it wasnt unanimous (Few great decisions are), or that it was political (they all are), etc is indeed dishonest debate.
So, yes OP, I agree, there’s been lots of dishonest debate here- but not on the side you think.