True. And there's the rub. The effort we spend shooting holes in their bill teaches those who pay attention where they are vulnerable, and while we may be successful shooting down today's bill, the next one could have better "armor", because we showed them how, by pointing out the flaws in the current bill, in detail.
In this, human nature works against us. There are people who simply cannot grasp the importance of keeping their mouths shut in their own best interest. We say "we oppose this bill, because it infringes on our rights." They respond with questions about how, and where it does this, so that "in the spirit of compromise and working together" they can write/rewrite it into a "better" bill. (better, being defined by them, as something that get them what they want, banning guns, but better meaning less vulnerable to legal challenges)
And we have people on our side who will happily tell them, in detail, point by point. They think they are helping, but they aren't. They think that if the other side just understands our points, they will recognize the rightness of our positions, and stop trying to pass laws which infringe on our rights.
THEY WON'T.
I think it is a better tactic for our side to state our opposition, and not explain to the other side every point. Make them do their own homework!!!
it may not, of course, work in the long run, but I see no point in making their task of banning our guns any easier for them.