It is the litmus test for any politician's stance on rights.
^^This is the crux of the whole thing.
If a politician does not trust citizens to have a 'certain type of firearm', then I don't want such an elitist 'wanna be ruler' to have any influence on my life.
If a politician does not want to have 'assault weapons', or 'weapons of war' in the hands of 'civilians', the he or she is one who denies reality, because just pushing such silly proposals insults intelligence, and shows contempt for the rest of us.
It's not a fallacy that a politician who does not trust 'normal citizens', and who does not face reality for what it is (in this case, crowing about 'assault weapons', or registration, or whatever) will carry those flaws into other things as well. It's just that they're stopped by those who understand their idiocy, and are not allowed to completely get their way.
The economy and social security is all fine and good, but when taken to the extreme, if the politicians who want to 'rule' are allowed to have their way, and disarm citizens, then eventually, they will become oppressors. That's not some theory. It's what happens, because that's human nature.
Then the economy and social security won't mean much.
Phasers and Socialism only work in Star Trek.