I suppose so. As for your, um, creative example of dialogue from those who are pro-RKBA, while I won't deny for a moment that there are those for whom the issue trumps all others in an emotional, unreasoning manner, the fact remains that gun ownership is in fact a Constitutionally protected right.
Does it have limitations? Of course...only the most extreme think otherwise. I have run across the occasional internet poster who will argue, in all apparent sincerity, that the 2A protects private ownership of any all weapons, from a sharp rock at one end to nukes at the other. Such an extreme point of view isn't worth serious debate.
Of course, the same applies to the opposite end of the spectrum, those who say words to the effect of "I'm sick of guns, and the government needs to confiscate every single one of them in civilian hands. Anyone who resists should have the gun taken from their cold dead fingers." Just look at H.R. 127, introduced this session by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. It would consfiscate, without compensation, hundreds of million of magazines from gun owners, and its various provisions would result if the ownership of a single .22 rilfe or single-shot shotgun costing the owner tens of thousnads of dollars over the course of their lifetime. It's patetnly absurd.
Mind you, I've seen this opinion (and slight variations of it) on this very site. Thankfully, the vast majority of posters here aren't so extreme;
Oh, the overwhelming sentiment here is for at least some increased level of gun control at the federal level, with which I respectfully disagree. And that being said, I could certainly live with universal background checks and red flag laws without much griping. I'm not about to support restrictions on "assault" weapons and "high" capacity magazines, though.
= new reply since forum marked as read