Rubbish

Agreed ... rubbish. An attempt to broaden the definition of "Arms" in the Second Amendment, as this writer suggests, is dishonest and is a slippery slope to more illegal government interference in our liberties and eventual infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The argument in the article is nonsense. A nuclear weapon is not a defensive arm. It is offensive and dissimilar from a rifle in this and other ways.

The article starts off with how Democrats and Republicans try to use tragedies to call for more government intervention and how Democrats do a better job of it. We need a third party that just does not even try to do this.

"Guns no longer offer us protection from the government."
Technically this is true, but respecting citizens' rights to protect themselves is and indirect reminder that rights flow from the people to the gov't. So I don't see citizens using their guns for direct protection against an overbearing government. But citizens having a right to deadly weapons asserts to people from a young age that the people are in charge of their lives. This is indirect protection from the government.

"Christian opposition to gay marriage? Immoral and homophobic."
Liberals aren't making a logical stretch to say opposition to equal marriage rights is based in homophobia. It's all about homophobia. If they weren't homophobic they wouldn't care about other people's marriages.

"One unfortunate reality of going too far with restrictions can be seen in your (liberals') own arguments on another issue: legalizing certain drugs. "
Yes. The arguments are shockingly similar. In both cases, neither side cares about harm reduction. In both cases, people see the other side a caricature of evil. It's similar to that ancient outgroup aversion that makes us fear and hate tribes that are different. Gun prohibition supporters and drug prohibition supporters sound alike to me.

“The fact of the matter is that this country has a problem with gun violence, and the best way to combat it is to make common targets much more difficult to hit.”[emphasis mine]
I'm not convinced of these two facts the author asserts.
Humans always have a problem with violence, and how do we set the threshold where it's too much of a problem that we need to interfere with law abiding citizens? He's calling it “gun violence”, but how do we know how much of it is related to guns. I suspect (anyone know the facts?) the majority of violent crimes don't involve a gun. To call it “gun violence”, we need to know that the gun was a significant cause of the crime.

Then he says the “best way” to combat it is to make common targets more difficult to hit. The vast majority of gun crimes involve one or two victims. You can't know who they're going to be and make them harder to hit. I wonder if by common targets he means ones that make for a lurid media story even if they're not common targets.