The students marching and the anti-NRA voices are all about setting up limits on the types of weapons that can be purchased. The most “radical” voices are also calling for higher age limits and for hoops that would make it harder for people associated with gangs, violent crimes, and hate groups to get them. Arguments against any of these points are a reasonable contribution to the dialogue. However, when you pretend that all proposals are “have the government confiscate all weapons”, you are only shouting the same straw man fallacy to the wind. No past president, no marches, and no agenda exists to confiscate all your weapons. There is no dialogue possible if you can’t really address the real argument. You are against “confiscating all weapons.” So? No one is proposing that. If you can’t address the actual petition, your voice will not be heard.
In the end, when that legislation passes, you will feel unheard and will fail to realize that when you had the chance you never said anything about it, because you spent all your time voicing the fallacies concocted by the NRA and never brought reason to bear. My suggestion: address the real proposals using reason and the constitution (or what is best for the nation, if the constitution does not cover it already). Shouting slogans against proposals no one is making is a losing game.