This is your website, so you have the right to do with it as you choose. That being said, I'd like to see you be honest about your actual purpose here. What you want is to make pronouncements and have your audience sing along in a chorus of agreement. So be it. Just don't expect those of us on the other side to be fooled.
Or to continue to waste our time "debating" Joan Peterson. I have stopped commenting on her posts because I know she and I will never agree. The differences in world views and values are too profound for total agreement.
About the only things that Joan Peterson and I agree on, after some reflection on my part, is that all firearms transfers should involve a background check, and that a better job must be done to include mental health records in background checks. I also think that training should be required for a license to carry a concealed weapon, and that training must include a qualification course of fire. Drug or alcohol use while armed should be prohibited, just as it is when operating automobiles.
As is the case now, one is always responsible for the use of the weapon in public, so everyone who carries a weapon must know when, and when not to use it. However, a person who uses a weapon in an act of lawful self defense should be immune from civil lawsuits.
Other then that, if you are not a prohibited person, you're good to go. No waiting periods to pick up a gun. No purchase limits: 1 handgun per month. No weapon-type bans: police officers and citizens get to carry the same weapons. No registration of weapons, no ammo restrictions, no micro-stamping, no rosters of supposedly safe weapons, unless the police are subject to the very same limits.