Actually, that is what your side does: equate speech with violence. I'm not doing that.

There are reasonable limits on all rights. Agreed?

There are abrogations or violations of rights. Agreed?

The two are different. Agreed?

But the former can be used as cover for the latter. "We aren't violating rights, we are just reasonably limiting them."

For the 1st Amendment, the Left uses the former (the reasonable limits) as cover to try to stop traditionally protected speech. Substantive political speech becomes "hate speech" and so can now be stopped as if only a reasonable limit is being applied.

I'm comparing that attempt, that everyone sees happening, to what you are preparing to argue regarding the 2nd Amendment. The similarity is the use of cover of reasonable limits to hide or justify the abrogation of rights.

That is the analogy which you appear to have missed.