Alright, I said I would avoid this fray, but I can't control my compulsion

First, just some philosophical points about cherry-picking singular verses, then I'll (as briefly as I can) explain how that verse in no way denies the election of saints.

I am adamantly against the practice of pulling out singular verses as some "end all / be all" to any given debate. My primary opinion about Arminian theology is that it is nothing but eisegesis to begin with (you imputing YOUR preheld bias into the meaning), and you are basically certain to do that when using singular verses. Who was the audience? What was the topic? What was the authoritorial intent of the larger passage? Was it for all people at all times, or a specific group? Was it even referencing the topic you're using as ammunition for? Nothing concerns me more than the incessant "Oh yeah, what about XXX verse???" I know your motive is pure, to use scripture to defend your belief, but it's so dangerous to be uncontextual like that. I never use single verses, you'll almost always hear me speak in terms of "overall narratives" or "broader passages". You just can't form your whole doctrine from one verse!

Now, about 1 John 2:2 - Let's remember, the foremost battle that "most" of scripture always dealt with was that the Gentiles now have access to God. God wasn't just the God of the Jews. That Jesus' atoning work was for "every tribe, and tongue, and nation" (not for everybody in every tribe, tongue, and nation). That's the "overall narrative" I spoke about above. I could stop there, point is made. This is always a problem of lazy (or nasty) hermeneutics. But look at all of John's writings, his "shtick" seemed to predominantly be the nature of Christ's work being for all people groups (not just the Jews). And that's specifically what was being talked about in the broader passage surrounding 1 John 2:2. This is certainly how John's audience would have understood it. Now I don't want to be argumentative, I understand that when you read that verse alone, your view is logical (I don't disagree). But if you start waaaay before that and read waaaay past it, your view doesn't fit what's even being taught there. That's the "broader passage" I spoke about. If your view of a single verse is seemingly out of place compared the meta-narrative of all scripture, and surely from the more immediate surrounding passage, please reconsider and study that view.

One more "foremost battle" that most of scripture dealt with was Jesus' constant contrast between Christianity and Judaism. Remember, it wasn't the unchurched who demanded Jesus' death (they frankly didn't know or care), it was the church!!! And what they really didn't like wasn't Jesus' claim to be God (that's what they said, but it was a smokescreen), it was because Jesus removed their control and autonomy from their religion. The basest notion of sin is "self", it's the purest form of sin. I am my own god, I do the work, I am good, I am etc. Yes, Jesus is my savior, but I always attend church, I read my bible for an hour each morning, I am a deacon, I cut the grass at church, I don't cuss or drink, I, I, I. I owe Jesus, I perform, I accept Him or not, I. Jesus + my white-knuckle grip on obedience. This was the constant battle of the new Testament (heck, read Galatians!!!). And this Arminian notion of "I have free will" is nothing more than that age-old practice of Judaism. It stirs man's deepest idol to take away his "will" to accept or refuse Christ. THAT is your beef with my view, you certainly don't have a theological point.