I agree that many activists deliberately use nebulous language to try and mislead people. No doubt about that. Universal background checks are quite specific though.
The NRA just came out in support of GVROs today, so I’m guessing those will pass as well. And I don’t think there’s much potential for abuse with those in light of the built-in safeguards against said abuse.
I don’t think we’re going to get an “assault weapons” ban anytime soon, and a national gun registry is a non-starter. And I wouldn’t call either of those “common sense reforms” like some gun control activists do. The last assault weapons ban didn’t have much impact on violent crime, and a national registry definitely feels like a trojan horse idea to me.
My only point was that I do think there are a handful of measures that might actually be effective and do not pose a bigger threat to the second amendment itself. Political activists of all stripes are prone to using deceptive language. That’s just how it goes. That said, I do think it’s possible to support very specific, well-defined reforms while simultaneously calling out bad-faith tactics when you see them. Of course, we can always agree to disagree on that point.