Someone here posted that traditionally there is one party that is anti 2A, but I don't think we can accurately state this any longer. Not judging by statements and votes of a lot of our traditional friends during the last decade. To me this argument is no longer factual.
I am not really worried, because first of all I think Heller will become one of the best tools in our political arsenal, if not the best of all. The question becomes, what will the current and future courts consider to be "reasonable restrictions?"
The U.N.? Again, I am not worried, because by law any treaty entered in to by the USA can NOT circumvent constitutional law, and all treaties must be ratified by the US Senate with a 2/3rds majority. They don't have the majority at all, and I think those who might otherwise be inclined to vote in favor will remember the price they paid for being anti 2A a decade ago. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs these days.
None of this is to say I have my guard down, nothing could be further than the truth.
I think the biggest threat we face in the foreseeable future is mass shootings. Eventually the majority of Americans with no particular pro 2A axe to grind are going to have enough of them, or something so awful will happen that overnight a tsunami of opposition will form against us. Should we wait for that to happen? Personally I don't believe it is in our best interests to sit inactive on the topic of mass shootings in the USA.