You should be nervous in my opinion. Not from Democrats but from law and order Republicans.
Eugene Volokh points out that the San Francisco Police Code allows the Chief of Police to revoke the license of anyone who sells ammunition because it:
1) Serves no sporting purpose;
(2) Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended to increase the damage to a human body or other target (including, but not limited to, Winchester Black Talon, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydra-Shok, Hornady XTP, Eldorado Starfire, Hollow Point Ammunition and Remington Golden Sabre ammunition; or
(3) Is designed to fragment upon impact (including, but not limited to, Black Rhino bullets and Glaser Safety Slugs).
As many commenters point out, there is no purpose in the right to bear arms. It is an unqualified right to bear arms and it has no restrictions placed upon it.
In this regard, law enforcement people and cat lovers with 99 cats in their house are on the same side: no one other than the police should have guns.
Do you think people are entitled to have guns for self-defense or not?