You know, if you are a political minority, sometimes getting everything you ever wanted is not a good thing. For example, the Supreme Court gave Southern slaveholders everything they ever wanted with the Dred Scott decision of 1857 (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford).
This was completely unacceptable to the people of the Northern, non-slave states. This was not because they cared about black people. It was because they did not want to compete with slave labor. As a result, they voted Republican and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
That, in turn, was unacceptable to the people of the South, because they had been told by pro-slavery "fire-eater" politicians that Lincoln would take away their slaves, although he had pledged to do nothing of the kind. The Southerners decided that the results of democracy were no longer acceptable to them. They announced they were leaving the United States, and created their own government specifically to preserve slavery.
As a result, the Southern slaveowners lost everything by 1865. Not just slaves, but sometimes everything they owned and their lives too. So did many, many other people, because of the slaveowner extremism and intransigence.
Although the parallels are obvious, I will point out that many people do NOT want the lethality of legally available weapons increased. This is not because they "hate guns", or want to impose "tyranny". It is because they are sick of the massacres that people with legally available highly lethal weapons easily can commit. They fear for their own lives, and for the lives of their children. I think it would be foolish to ignore that. We have lived in peace with this law for 88 years. I don't see any practical point in outraging the public by having it declared unconstitutional.
PS - I am not going to vote in the poll. The answer in favor of retaining the NFA is phrased in a loaded, "have you stopped beating your wife?" manner.
edited for spelling and grammar