Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

So, in your estimation, does Congress just... not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I'm aware, they're popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that's even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.

Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There's, say, no selection bias at all?

Interesting.

By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.

That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?

The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.

Is that so? I'm interested in seeing your support for such a notion.

If we're going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn't seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would... suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position... do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?

We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa's 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% 'yay' rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa's Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it's mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.

Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.

I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.

Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.