Nobody has tried to take away your guns. Stop.
Right. Just as almost no bill ever gets a veto. They only bother voting for bills which have been negotiated with the executive not to be vetoed. If they don't have the votes, they don't bother trying to do anything. If they have the votes and it serves their agenda. they will do it even if they said a million times and swore on a million bibles that they would never do it. "No one has tried it yet" is a very crude attempt to appeal to survivor bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm?
Keeping them out of their hands? If it's already illegal for them to own guns, you don't additional legislature to make more guns illegal. You just need more budget for police to enforce existing laws. It's not illegal for anyone to possess blueprints to anything (unless there are IP laws involved). So felons who can't own guns, can own blueprints for guns. Once you go down the path of limiting felons' speech rights, you'll be an earshot away from other laws criminalizing unwanted or "dangerous" speech.
Nobody has come for your guns. You are literally Chicken Little.
Well, actually, no, he is not. If this survives a SCOTUS challenge, it opens the door for legislatures to criminalizing possession of blueprints (of guns) without a license.
My guess is no, that the major function of the surge is prioritizing, not increasing demand.
I think you meant "increase in supply". And you would have to back that up. From where I am standing, everyone has a price. Lawyers would start giving Uber rides instead practicing law if the price jumped 50x. Obviously, there is some lower threshold which, when crossed, would entice people with lower earning potential to "get in on the action."
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.
If all else fails, lower your standards.