Wait...say that again...
Oh yeah...now the ego's stoked
Dbookstra, the question of equilibrium is interesting in theory, but it's troublesome in practice. We're winning, but things are still precarious. As it stands, real 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy. Four years (since Heller
) is a blink of the eye in the historical longview.
We've made some very real gains, and we've laid the groundwork for more, but I won't concede anything for worry that we'd inadvertently tip the scales in the other direction.
For example, weapons capable of using magazines holding more than 20 rounds are weapons in common use. They're used by law enforcement and the military. Those magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment. If I say, "OK, I'll give up larger magazines in favor of a little leniency on silencers," I'm trading something that's in common use for something that's not.
Then a silencer gets used in a public shooting, and they get regulated back to Title II status, and we're worse off than when we made that deal.
Frankly, the other side had their day in the sun. It's only now, after things changed and they found themselves on the losing side, that they want to have a "conversation." I remember the 1990's, and I remember their arrogance and malice. They had their chance.