"The fact that more people who have been treated as second class citizens or at the very least persecuted are slowly becoming accepted as equals makes it easier for them to identify with the concept that personal ownership of weapons is a fundamental element of equality."
I'm of two minds on immigration; on the one hand, immigration was at the center of everything our nation was built around since before the very beginning. Before independence, each colony was its own culture and identity, toiling away to prove each system's moral superiority; this had the effect of simultaneously creating highly productive diverse societies, and then pitting them together in collaborative competition. Actually a very beautiful time, historically --small wonder it bore out the lofty ideals of our inevitable revolution, once we outgrew our colonial purpose (by product of highly productive societies is that they can't be easily controlled or domesticated).
On the other hand, mass-migration is, historically, a destructive element. Only moderate migration can have the competitive and social benefits we associate with the presence of new blood. Massive moves of people bring only shortage and conflict, and the insulated tribal groups they spawn only impede the full induction of their members into the larger nation. They don't learn from us, we don't learn from them, and we become opponents in competition for resources rather than collaborators creating them.
Bringing this way, way, way back to the topic of gun issues, the fact is that the vast majority of today's migrants --and the vast majorities of those that many are proposing to introduce intentionally in massive numbers-- do not yet value the concepts of civilian gun ownership nor their duty to uphold the ideals that formed the nation they seek to live in. They are being used as a disruptive device against social systems seen as unfavorable to a political party that also does not value the concepts of righteous self defense or governmental restraint. Nothing more than a convenient weapon, made up of men, women, and children, being leveled against a broad section of the American public. The type of game-change they potentially represent is existential --this is why refugees are universally loathed in stable nations forced to take them in.
It's not necessarily the end of the world or the 'destruction of all we hold dear' or whatever worst-case scenario we can dream up, but the fact is that core issues like our devotion to the right to keep and bear arms will be diluted in their favor at least for a generation of so, with lingering effects thereafter. The belief and faith in personal responsibility is
not innate to mankind; I don't know how anyone with a grasp of history or the present world could claim that. It must be taught, and that means a certain bandwidth that can be accommodated by the "teachers" before they are overwhelmed.
Regarding the "Overton Window"; leaders and politicians over millennia have been well aware of this aspect of human political behavior long before a mid-twentieth century social scientist's name was assigned to it. It would not surprise me if some Anti-gunners think the creation of AR pistols using the "SIG Arm Brace" is the Pro-gunners attempting to use the "Door in the Face" technique to expand what is legally acceptable.
Our technique is way funner than theirs, though
. The more I think about it, I think the Overton Window is a very jaded perspective, that is increasingly outmoded the more founded your worldview becomes. If you have no principles, and don't think very hard about anything presented to you, this notion of squishy boundaries based on how visceral your reaction is probably somewhat accurate. I can see how an elected pol would come to find this view, after seeing just how moronic and apathetic the general public can be. However, you have the activist class out there, who are committed and knowledgeable in the topics & beliefs they hold dear, with windows both narrower and stubbornly nailed in place than others', who are also much louder compared to the placid masses. We (both we and our opposition) act as a stabilizing force on our respective boundaries, refuting the very concept of Overton's Window as being a perceptibly viscoelastic phenomenon. Glass flows over a very long time, but is at the same time one of the more rigid substances out there.
Tug of war is a
way better analogy, since it brings in the concepts of resources, strength, and footing
TCB