We need to adapt to the political environment.
The current 2A narrative is about being armed to protect oneself from government overreach. "You need your arms because of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc."
There are also a 2A narrative about hunting.
Time to make a change.
Not all people are into hunting, and the animal rights left has made hunting sound like animal abuse. Not everyone is willing to take up arms to overthrow a tyrannical government, and the leftist narrative of making these sound like conspiratorial Dale Gribble types has been successful to a lot of people.
But there is a part of the 2A that tends to be underrepresented - and this is our ace in the hole to gain more support for the 2A.
We need to start pushing the narrative that the 2A is a human right of self defense against criminals and thugs. This needs to be pushed more than fighting tyranny or hunting. The human right element needs to be pushed.
We have antis telling us "well when the 2A was written muskets were the weapons commonly available, so you have a right to muskets but not contemporary firearms. Using a human rights narrative, we can reply that "The 1A was written before the internet, TV and radio, so are you advocating no more free speech TV, internet or radio?" A good comeback using human rights narrative.
"Shall not be infringed" - we do not limit people's right of free speech because of method of exercising that free speech. The left don't want to limit abortions by any kind of method. They don't want to limit right of voting based on method, but they want to limit your right of self defense based on method.
In addition, people are more likely to agree to a self-defense narrative versus criminals and thugs due to the large number of people negatively impacted by crime. You can pain those who oppose the 2A as pro-thug and pro-criminal versus pro-your-human rights which the 2A is all about.
Change the 2A narrative to a self-defense, human rights narrative.