The Left manipulated this in the 1960s by demanding certain things like "free speech," which they promptly used to run down American heritage and then convert into a club called "Political Correctness" to squash the free speech of anyone opposing their anti-American/White/Western agenda. In the process, they cast a double blow against our heritage: First, the aforementioned destruction, but second, they drove those on the Right--perhaps a bit surprisingly, many in the 2A community--into that exact same approach.
What those on the Right didn't realize is that unlike themselves, the Left didn't play fair. Add in the natural differences of Right and Left vis a vis the human condition and human nature, and frankly nature itself, and it failed completely. (Research Herbert Marcuse's "Liberating Tolerance.")
Libertarians, followers of the most self-defeating sociopolitical philosophy imaginable short of intentional self-genocide, became childlike, unwilling to work for the social policies they wanted (except on drugs, of course). Purists similarly expected constitutions and laws to work automatically. And both leaned on their "rights" to avoid having to explain to the general population why they should have their rights. "Rights don't have 'needs' attached!" they say, even though "necessary" is the sixth word of their first (or second, for the religious Right) favorite point of the Bill of Rights.
They forgot (discussion of Teabrainery omitted here) that we have a COMMON LAW system, not a libertarian one, and our federal and State constitutions are written in that context (TDF 79). They seem to ignore that we have a system where leaders are dependent on the votes of the common schmucks to be in power (well, at least until the 2020 Election Steal--which these same 2A-championing, "resistance to tyranny"-preaching selfish folks allowed to occur, with only a few of us calling for the Federalist 46 State action vision of the Founders). Some are opportunists, just drawing a following, but many genuinely think the opinion of the vast swath of Americans makes no difference. Either that, or they have deluded themselves into think most Americans support their "purist" (I won't quibble over semantics today) views of our Right to Arms--full auto, artillery, CCW without permits, and especially for libertarians: every criminal, drughead, and nutcase with all of the above.
These folks run down anyone of rational thinking willing to engage the legislative process to mitigate the damage of anti-gun legislation. The Heller case in 2008 has, in a sense, gone to their heads, and they believe a four-word incantation--"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"--somehow changes the fact that legislation that may indeed infringe can indeed still get passed, and even honest courts may not see them as infringing, thus leaving them to do the damage to RKBA that they do. Yes, folks, rational people might differ on things like this, given our Common Law basis. Then add in the reality of biased, corrupt, and packed courts, and the approach is more destined to fail than ever.
"Why should I have to do such-and-such a thing, when by 'right' I shouldn't?" is a question I used to hear from liberals and children as they attempted an emotional blackmail to get their way. The answer was obvious, and often given to them: "Grow up. Maybe you shouldn't have to, but that doesn't change the fact that you do have to." What we've seen in the past couple or three decades, though, is that approach taking root on the Right. And unlike with liberals, too many on the conservative/Right actually believe it's valid! They have genuinely come to regard the "should" in that question far more than the "have." Unlike the Left, they have come to believe their own propaganda--even if it was copied from their opponents. (And of course, our side's use of it validated it for the other side and invalidated the adult response to it.) Again, the Heller case affirming RKBA as a constitutional right had its impact, as up till then there was still official ambiguity, and it was harder for these people to build up the mental lock.
The result is that today, when we face increasing liberalization of the nation and the ultimate challenge to RKBA--the potential of a packed Supreme Court that could reverse Heller and eviscerate 2A as a private rightl--the prevailing response of the 2A community is to double down with over-the-top demands and refusal to defend them substantively. Rather than try to salvage as much RKBA firepower as possible, with an eye on baseline necessities (TDF 73) and tactical realities (TDF 46) of our time (TDF 70), they take a self-defeating NATO approach of "If they take one gun, we might as well let them take all guns."
So, here are the answers to various categories that would ask that question (see also TDF 67):
LIBERTARIANS: "Grow up. It's a Common Law constitutional system, not a libertarian system. Accept that and work with it."
PURISTS: "Grow up. It's a Common Law constitutional system, which means there are contexts, precedents, and procedures. And not everyone of good reason will agree with you on interpretation and scope of RKBA. And no, abuses and overreaches of other rights don't warrant the same to 2A. The answer to that is the reversion of our laws and jurisprudence to something more akin to our past--i.e., move Right."
FOLLOWER-SEEKING HACK WITH RADIO SHOW: "Give me your show."
GROW UP! (TDF 72) Now.