Gun control legislation, in the traditional sense of banning this or that kind of firearm, is not that popular. The Democratic Party doesn't seem to be pushing it precisely for that reason - the NRA basically won the PR war.
But let's think about it, right?
There are several reasons why people buy firearms. There's sport, there's personal defense, and there's show (as in, "Look what I got, a sweet new rifle!") I'm not sure about the distribution of gun sales between sport and defense, but I'm pretty sure that buying weapons explicitly to show them off is not so common - for the reason I'm going to describe in this diary.
Guns are expensive.
If you want a cheap noisemaker to keep in the drawer next to your bed, that's probably not going to set you back too far. But if you want to get serious, buying a firearm is going to set you back a few hundred dollars at least, and that's not counting any additional accessories you may want to buy for it, like locks, safes, cleaning gear, additional magazines if it's an automatic, and of course ammunition.
Needless to say, the more you practice wielding your new firearm, the more it will cost you - ammunition is not exactly cheap, and I recall being told by a few enthusiasts that it's getting more expensive all the time. But, of course, if you don't practice wielding it, you can never be sure you'll hit anything you want to hit, or avoid hitting things you don't want to hit, should you be called upon to fire it outside of training.
Let me just add that sporting-purpose weapons, designed for competitive shooting or hunting, are not that likely to be affected by well-written gun-control legislation, because who goes hunting or shooting in contests with assault rifles or explosive ammunition? Anyone buying a weapon for defense, though, should consider a few things. Things like, "Who are you concerned will be threatening or attacking you, that you would need this defense?" Broadly, I'd say the answers to that question separate into ordinary every-day crooks or the government.
Governments have armies. Those armies, if the government is a wealthy-enough one, tend to be reasonably well-trained in tactics as well as getting marksmanship training. They also tend to be reasonably well-armed, well-armored, and well-supported. In case of some disastrous policy decision, in which the government dispatches an army of either heavily armed police officers or professional soldiers, attempting to protect yourself from them with a firearm is probably a bad decision - it makes you a higher-priority target. At best, you could expect to be shot. At worst, you could expect to be annihilated along with the surrounding block. It depends on how annoyed they are. You might get a few of them, as did the heavily armed white supremacist with the urinating dog, but you will also end up very dead shortly after, so it's not really going to matter.
Crooks, now... if you have to fight off crooks your odds are better, because they tend not to have the training or the fire support to make best use of their assets. The tricky thing, though, is this: by the time you realize that someone is threatening you, he's probably got the initiative, which means that pulling a weapon on him is a very bad idea. Sure, you can train in quick-draw and disarming techniques, but the payoff is modest (how many crooks are after your life, after all, rather than your stuff?) and the cost of a failed attempt at defense is extremely high (you are killed by the crook).
To sum up:
You have the right to bear arms, limited by the cost to the general welfare of letting people buy certain weapons which are more dangerous to the public than they are useful (machine guns, for example)... and if you're getting them to hunt or compete, good for you. But if you want to defend yourself, be aware: it's an expensive gamble that may make you less safe. So, if in this economy you choose to spend a lot of money on a weapon to defend yourself, be aware that it may have all been spent in vain.
(Final note: I'm not referring to anyone who might need to carry a weapon for personal security as part of his job, although I would think these people would get a better deal by buying through their employers, if they have any.)