10/10 Founding Fathers agree: If Trump wanted to do this, he should have gone through Congress.

Yet you haven't shed a single tear over the 1st and 2nd amendment being under threat, but quite the opposite.

All the gun control legislation being proposed is 100% compliant with Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment... or at least does not directly contradict it.

What is threatening the 1st Amendment?

Please stop with your cowardly and pathetic attempt at deflecting the blame at SC, when it is the hyenas on the left who call for Hate Speech and banning of guns all together. The champions of wokeness in Silicone Valley have already taken upon themselves to deprive us of our 1st amendment right. Not one tear was shed over that!
How many times in the last year have we heard dems call for gun control, falsely claiming that 2nd amendment was written long ago and that we don't have threats like that anymore! Not once have I heard the SCI say that constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten!
The same people what want to destroy/rewrite our constitution are the first ones to tell us how we must obey it. Madness! It's the same people who make sure we all know that No One Is Above The Law, while catering to illegals.

Come back and talk to me about guns after right-wingers have disbanded their silly "citizens' militias" in Virginia, all over reasonable gun restrictions that are 100% compliant with the Second Amendment.

Now, when you talk about Silicon Valley, you are talking about private companies that aren't bound by the First Amendment necessarily and may exercise control over their content. Same as ImgFlip, which has its own Terms of Service and reserves the right to delete any content that violates it.

Private companies have free speech rights, too -- corporations being people and all that -- and don't owe any one particular person or viewpoint a platform.

They want to be considered a platform (for various reasons), but behave like publishers. We've already had congressional hearings on this. Anyway, I thought your problem was with shedding of tears, which you have not while accusing others.
These "reasonable gun restrictions" do nothing but chip away at the second amendment. No tears? Didn't think so.

“Chip away”? Slippery slope fallacy.

If the gun restrictions ever go to far, then you bet Second Amendment groups will challenge them in court and they will be overturned by a 5-justice Conservative SCOTUS majority.

Heck, you bet even reasonable and obviously constitutional restrictions are going to be challenged in court anyway by the rabid pro-gun groups and their lawyers.

I came here to bring up your lack of tears over arguments that chip away at our constitution, which contradicts your OP. Not to debate you on these issues.

Why am I not crying? Because they're not attacks and they don't chip away at anything.

Look: I'm no Trump supporter. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you he's been chipping away at the rights of U.S. citizens, because he hasn't, really. I would call that liberal hyperbole. (Non-citizens? Totally different story)

But his thumbing his nose at the war powers stuff? Big deal.

I'm a supporter of the constitution and it must be protected from enemies, foreign and domestic.

I’m sure there are one or two in this 658-page impeachment report

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

This version even has the dissenting views in it, so... fair & balanced.