The reason gun control advocates are often dismissed by gun-rights advocates is that too many of them operate from one or more flawed premises. This includes the arguments made by gun-rights advocates and the traditional orthodox understanding of Scripture. I will address a couple of those flawed premises here.
Gun-rights advocates are not saying that anyone should have any weapon for any reason. As has been pointed out many times by gun-rights advocates, a number of weapons are already illegal. You cannot legally own a machine gun. You cannot legally own a rocket launcher, a tank, a stash of mustard gas or a nuclear weapon. The idea that gun-rights advocates want an unlimited right to keep and bear arms is a straw man.
Many people would disagree with the claim that the weapons Leftists want to ban “have no legitimate defensive purpose.” An AR-15, for example (which is not a military weapon, nor is it a machine gun) is considered by many to be ideal for home defense and many people have in fact used it for that exact purpose – and preserved their lives and the lives of their families in doing so.
It is true that the text of the Second Amendment does not mention hunting, but historical context matters. Hunting was common at the time the amendment was written, so that should be assumed to be protected. (Plus, there is the Ninth Amendment.) God made man omnivorous, and eating meat from an animal a hunter killed himself is no different from eating meat purchased from the store. It could easily be argued that hunting is more humane than buying meat at the store.
Furthermore, there are plenty of verses in Scripture about the justifiable use of lethal force in defense of one’s own life or the life of someone else. In the Old Testament, this includes Nehemiah 4:8-18 and Exodus 22:2. (It is important to remember that Jesus is the same God as the God of the OT.) In the New Testament, husbands specifically are commanded to provide for their families (see 1 Timothy 5:8 and Ephesians 5:25) and that includes protecting the family from those who would do harm.
If you are going to argue for gun control, then you need to accurately represent the arguments of gun rights advocates. That is the honorable thing to do, and it makes your argument more effective.