It's always good to consider the source of an argument, but it's an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss an argument on that basis. Sure, that might explain WHY he takes the position he does, but it doesn't address his argument itself.

He has been a gangsterment grifter his whole career, as you pointed out, so of course he's going to support the gangsterment. But the Founders had just spent a few years establishing a new gangsterment by the time the Second Amendment was adopted, so how likely is it that they would write something into the Constitution that could be the means of its undoing? Indeed, they made it very difficult to amend the Constitution, especially via a concon (constitutional convention, for the folks in Rio Linda). Once a State is created, it's prime directive is to preserve itself, even if that is against "The People" it was ostensibly created to serve. 

I agree that a concon with Leftists could be a disaster resulting in a far worse gangsterment than we have now. That's why I favor Human Governance 3.0™ 😁

https://open.substack.com/pub/christophercook/p/era-democracy-must-end