I think that is a shame.
I don't know where you live, but anybody in Kalifornia who claims to be pro-Second Amendment and who doesn't own arms, has to be missing a key motivational ingredient. And that is the deep-burning indignation that comes from the harassing infringements that can only be fully appreciated by purchasing and owning firearms.
If you own no firearms, then how do you know how burdensome and trivially-effective is the requirement to have a Handgun Safety Certificate. How can one appreciate the irony that the prior Basic Handgun Safety Certificate, which was purchased with the expectation that it was good for life, is now totally worthless.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the trivially-effective questions that require one to swear, under penalty of perjury, that one is not a felon, or any of several other barred groups?
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the notion that, regardless of the number of arms already owned, one must wait ten days to take delivery of a firearm, requiring more costly paperwork on the part of the dealer, and added expense for the buyer, including a second trip to pick up the firearm?
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the challenge faced by purchasers of rifles to know, understand, and comply with the several different "assault weapons" laws? Attaching a three-ounce plastic pistol grip to some rifles is perfectly legal. Attaching one to other rifles is a felony.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the limitations on the purchase of accessory items, such as normal capacity magazines, that are perfectly legal to own in about 47 states, but not Kalifornia? Accidently borrowing such an item from a friend could make you and the friend guilty of a crime.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the burden of having to select a handgun from a limited list of state-approved "not unsafe" handguns? Some such handguns have been modified from the designers initial vision to have manually operated "safeties" that reduce the reliability of the firearm and which encourage the user to plan on fumbling with a small, useless mechanism during a time of high stress.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the wasted resources inherent in requiring manufacturers and/or dealers to supply a lock with every firearm? Many firearms owners in Kalifornia have bags of such useless locks.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the requirements for carrying a "concealable firearm" only when one is imminently going to use such a firearm, such as going to a firing range, and then only locked, unloaded, with the ammunition locked in a separate container?
Even for those outside Kalifornia, how can one appreciate the requirements such as those in Nevada, that a handgun to be carried concealed must be of a make and model listed on one's permit?
In Texas, where can one carry a concealed weapon without committing a crime, given that only certain prohibiting signs are recognized by law?
In New Mexico, is it still a crime to carry concealed in a convenience store that happens to sell both gas and alcoholic beverages?
In Vermont is it legal to .... Nevermind. It's legal there.
Wherever you live, there is much to know about firearm ownership that might not be very noticeable to those who have decided not to arm themselves. There are certainly some people who should not arm themselves. But they are very much a minority, I think.
Perhaps it’s better to make your argument this way, rather than rallying for the right to own a nuke. That kind of ridiculous argument only hurts the rest of a legitimate point.