I see no one recognises the strategy yet.
Emphasizing questions of distribution over questions of control requires not the abolitionists but the gun nuts themselves to start talking about the dangers of distributing guns more widely. They do want to distribute them more widely, at least as widely as will let them into their own hands, and they have for many years been able to be that side of the argument. But what will they say if they have to debate the position of universal distribution?
Well, actually, as you can see from the thread, they'll say nothing.
So meanwhile, what kind of government does arm only some of the population? Is there actually any reason at all to not arm all of the population?
Your rights to bear arms have not been infringed (too much, so far). In fact, they've been augmented. You have not just the right to bear arms, but the opportunity too. Mass production and wide distribution gave you this. So why not try for universal distribution? Surely the world would be safer.