Our history is replete with compromises, give and take away. From the Founding Fathers to the president, congress, and courts of today this process continues - a whittle & nick here, a reversal there.
So nothing unusual or new. The question is, why fear the process and refuse to use it to our advantage when we can?
Example the libs/antis were given the assault weapon ban, then had it taken away.
And from their perspective, were they any worse off after the gun ban expired than they were before it was enacted? By passing the gun ban, did they get some kind of rebound at the federal level where congress turned around and went farther the other direction than they had before?
Conservatives/pro gun people were allowed to buy new full auto guns, then had that taken away.
Really? When were we "allowed" to buy new full autos? Near as I can tell, the history of full autos starts with nary a regulation, progresses to the prohibitive transfer "tax" of the GCA of 1934, and then proceeds to a ban on transfers of all new guns in the 80s or 90s.
There are volumes of similar, some minor, some major.
Respectfully, I doubt you or anyone else could name even 3 or 4 examples of congress acting within the 14th amendment to protect civil or constitutional rights, and then having those rights subsequently restricted by congress. I'm not talking about the normal ebb and flow of politics and policy. I'm talking about the voting rights act, the civil rights act, the ADA, and similar pieces of legislation aimed specifically at protecting individual rights from State and local infringement.
All three branches of our government have hacked at the second Amendment, taking away/reducing, restricting our RKBA. You are right that a future congress could do more - better or even worse laws could be passed.
So my question is, what danger is posed by supporting federal protection of our RKBA? What does it make worse?
Some problems are perhaps too overwhelming and/or involved to be solved by mutual consent of the states. I don't think this one qualifies, falls in that category.
So you actually think that NJ, NYC, Illinois, and California are someday soon going to be brought to see the light and respect our federal constitutional RKBA through some mutual consent? Do tell me on what basis you predict this. I see zero evidence.
"What the government gives, the government can take away" is not just a nice turn of words. It is the caged beast, clawing to get out.
And the States are immune to this alledged problem?
We celebrate Heller and McDonald as far as they go, but are reticent to have congress act within those rulings? Makes no sense to me. Would we have been unhappy had the decisions gone farther and better protected our RKBA to posses usable guns in public?
Accept no pretty Trojan Horses within the walls.
Any bill can be written to be bad. But on general principle, what is the "Trojan horse" if congress were to act to ban State and local laws criminalizing the peaceful possession of firearms by citizens?
For sake of argument, let's say it was a straight up, "shall not be infringed" no permit needed, just a straightforward declaration that "no citizen of the United States age 18 or older shall be prevented from carrying a firearm in public for his self-defense...." with appropriate redress to federal courts against any local or State official who attempted to enforce any law to the contrary.
What makes that any more of a concern at the federal level, than it would be at any State level?