69% of Americans support the Supreme Court's Bruen decision that "protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"

Yes we do. I know guns are unpopular here, but Democrats could never lose another election again if they'd give up on trying to disarm the public.

That's bullpucky. Trump is not pro-2A, and the bump-stock extension was passed under his administration. As with most things, his position is vague, but mostly catering to monied special interests, as evidenced by how his administration approached 3D printing (the gun industry can't make money if people can print their own guns at home). In any case, he's certainly not been a vocal 2A defendant, it doesn't come up in his rhetorical rants, and his record while in office was wishy-washy at best. This hasn't made a single iota of difference to his base.
2A is a key issue for many people, but it's specious to claim it's the issue that's deciding a large number of flippable votes. NRA symbols are usually stuck next to a Confederate flag sticker, and that tells you all you need to know about that topic.
- 2A single issue voters arent necessarily voting for Republicans more so against Democrats running on a platforms of gun control, at least with presidential elections.
  And it's not just about flipping votes by driving turn out. A stance like Harris had of AW ban via executive order would ensure those single issue voters show up and vote for the opposition.
  I agree with the comment above on strategy. I don't think pro gun control voters are going to ditch Team Blue over it either. It's definitely a flaw with the two party system, but what are they going to do vote Republican?
- He says he is and that’s all that matters to his supporters.
- You're literally stating that gun owners are usually racist white males...the fuck? There are way more gun owners now than ever and the diversity is no longer the minority.
How many of your guns have the scary democrats taken?
"Disarm" is a pretty disingenuous choice of word.
- Plenty actually. Passing gun control laws because of how a gun looks for instance
- If they get their way, only 2/7 of my guns would be legal (the revolver and the 1953 lever action), so that would take 5 of mine personally. You are in denial if you think I'm going for that.
- Literally all the guns. I used to live in a converted .50 cal and the damn Democrats took it all. Now I'm homeless.
  Just kidding. I love watching insecure troglodytes tweak over a fake threat to their only means of defense; metal slugs moving at 1300'/second.
  All jokes aside I own several firearms. If you cling to guns as a special facet of your personality you are a weak and failed individual. You deserve the mental anguish over your perceived persecution.
- Kamala Harris is on record saying she wants mandatory buybacks - that is, mandatory confiscations. So chances are, if she becomes president, we'll see her pushing for it.

I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.

Yeah, the issue was it was a direct response to courts deliberately ignoring all other precedents to purposefully deny the right. If you can't apply scrutiny due to your own personal biases you lose scrutiny.
- That's not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn't get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.
  The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can't imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.

Nice