Gun-grabbers always talk of compromise. A compromise in when both sides agree to make concessions. Compromise, by definition, has never occured in the ever-increasing legislation aimed at controlling firearms since the only group who has had to make concessions have been gun owners.
From the 1968 Gun Control Act to the 1989 Assault Weapons Ban to the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill which extended the definition of banned assault weapons and gave us the Brady Bill, gun-owners have agreed to "compromise" slowly selling out their personal integrity while showing the gun-grabbers that they can effectively be bullied into submission. What have they received in return?
Now gun-owners are being asked, once again, to "compromise" on .50 caliber rifles, so-called "smart" guns, mandatory trigger locks and storage requirements and more comprehensive registration schemes after repeatedly being told by the gun-grabbers that they would be left alone if they "compromised" (read: capitulated) on the last and what was at the time deemed the final piece of gun-control legislation.
Well, gun-owners are growing sick and tired of these one-side-gives-all "compromises" which they now correctly view as "incrementalism" --what they had warned about in the first place. It is up to them to put their foot down and say "you've taken enough, we will give you no more."
Bang on! A true compromise would be along along the line of:
The handguns a citizen registers would qualify for "shall issue" permits.