The more salient point is that the use of cars is "well-regulated" (hmm, where else have I see those two words?). Licenses, tests, etc. Because, you know, cars can kill.
Somehow, the 2nd Amendment crowd got it into their heads that any form of regulation is a slippery slope that invariably leads to outright prohibition.
There are some countries with very sensible gun laws. Where to own a gun, you must pass not only a background check, but also a licensing test to make sure that you know how to operate it properly and safely. That's not a prohibition. And that's the kind of thing that the NRA used to support, before its leadership was replaced by hardline zealots. There was a time when the NRA was about promoting marksmanship and safety and less about slippery-slope FUD.
considering the avenue that gun-control advocates have taken, can you really blame the NRA, as the opposition, for taking an equally strong (but opposing) stance?
gun-control advocates have attempted to steamroll (sometimes successfully) virtually meaningless legislation through legislatures. New York's SAFE Act was so well crafted that the 7-round magazine limit included police officers. Add to that the fact that virtually no manufacturer makes a 7-round magazine - the brilliant solution to this conundrum put forth was to own a 10-round mag and load it only to 7 rounds.
The 1994 AWB did essentially nothing. there was 0 measurable effect, as published in an analysis paper by the DOJ. all it did, basically, was inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
magazine limits also are feel-good measures, as the same DOJ report showed that ~20% of all firearm crimes in NJ, IIRC, had more than 10 shots. And in those situations, it was unclear whether the larger magazine capacity actually had an effect on the outcome of the crime.
basically, all these gun laws are targeting symptoms of a larger problem, rather than the problem itself.
inner city gun violence? gangs and drugs. which are also related to education and economic opportunity.
outside of the inner city? handling/safety (for example, the instructor who recently died).
what's the point of banning specific makes/models of firearms, when there are plenty of equivalent makes/models that are legal?
why target "assault weapons" (aka scary black rifles, mostly) when the vast majority of firearms crimes are committed with pistols?
why punish 300 million people, nationwide, when the vast majority of gun crime is committed in certain locales?
quite frankly, it's ridiculous to ban things that make no difference in the end, especially when numbers back that up.