Why Does ‘Compromise’ Always Mean Gun Control Wins?

Why Does ‘Compromise’ Always Mean Gun Control Wins? By  for The Federalist

Gun rights defenders are willing to genuinely compromise. But gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith, creating bad policy with no logical end.

People often ask me why I am so unwilling to “compromise” on gun control. In reality, I’m not. A compromise is supposed to mean both sides of an argument get something out of the deal. Neither side gets everything they want, but they both at least get something.

When people ask me what I would be willing to compromise on, I give them a simple answer: I would trade tougher background checks in exchange for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity. If we are going to create a system where every gun purchaser is fully vetted through the FBI’s background check system, then we should give those vetted and trusted gun owners the right to carry their guns nationwide.

Gun control advocates usually gasp when I make this recommendation, as if the thought of actually having to agree to pro-gun reforms has never crossed their minds. The answer I get is almost always a hard “no,” and that tells me everything I need to know about the gun control movement’s intentions. Every gun control bill that passes is just one step toward an ultimate goal.

If you get lucky and catch a gun control activist in a particularly honest mood, they’ll admit they think the Second Amendment itself should be repealed. More often than not, though, they will feign defensiveness when you accuse them of this. Never forget that when the issue was before the Supreme Court in 2008, gun control organizations openly argued in amicus briefs that there is no such thing as an individual right to own a gun.

Negotiating in Good Faith Has Led to Compromise

Gun rights supporters are so unwilling to compromise because we know we are getting nothing in return. The left’s idea of a “compromise” is that gun owners get to keep some of their guns instead of having to give up all of them. But even if that were palatable — and it’s not — we know any deal we agree to now will not be honored in the future.

Here’s an example: When Congress started debating a background check bill in the early 1990s, Democrats wanted to give the FBI unlimited time to vet gun purchasers. From the very beginning, even when the FBI was using paper records, the background check system was designed to be “instantaneous.” Gun control advocates, however, wanted to give the FBI as much time as necessary to complete a background check. This was hard for them to sell. A background check isn’t instant if the FBI needs weeks or even months to process it.

Continue Reading / The Federalist >>>

Sharing is caring!

-->