It's gotten us more freedom with regard to some issues and less freedom with regard to others. Kind of like the tension we have always been in since this whole thing got started.
yes we will take away your civil rights, but only for ten years
sweet, where do I sign up for this excellent compromise?
Here's an example of a compromise: Brady bill was stopped by NRA and long waiting period and discretion by LEOs was replaced by NICS. Now, background checks for sales of firearms (a constitutional right) are presumed, but are not nearly enough and must be replaced with the laundry list of things desired by Everytown.
When you compromise, you are setting the baseline for the next compromise. And maybe you have to compromise (because if you don't you straight up lose in a zero sum game approach), but you're not going to get MORE freedom once you do that. You give up freedom and it's gone.
You're assuming a consensus where there isn't one because where to draw the line is critical. And, like I have already said again, the NRA has supported and assisted in the passage of red flag laws that have sufficient due process protection built in.
well it varies by jurisdiction
I know (or seem to remember) that you've been personally affected by this sort of situation so I'm not going to internet tough guy you on this one. The standard is high in some places and very low in others. Like I already said, if due process protections are observed, then generally most people (including decisionmakers at the NRA) are not opposed to laws that prevent mentally ill people from possessing firearms. But it's an important line.
And is this for guns only, or is it also for voting, driving, custody of children, going to work? Where do you draw the line? Also, if they already have a gun and run afoul of your database somehow, can the cops go take their guns from them?
You are equating the purpling of red states with increased support for gun control in those states and in those populations. I'm not sure that's correct.
Yes and I have no doubt that any effort at the federal level would fail spectacularly right now.
Besides, what did the AWB even do? Everybody who had an AW or LCM got to keep it. The only real impact was in acquisition of only those firearms on the list and 10+ round magazines. It really was not that burdensome.
"It's not an issue of compromise?" lol okay sorry I responded to a post about compromises with a discussion of compromising. How ridiculous of me!
Not surprisingly you appear to have no idea about what the NRA does or does not do.
The Florida situation proves my point. You want more red flag laws. The Parkland shooter is an example of not enforcing the current laws (which would have likely resulted in some sort of commitment or adjudication). The government evaluated the shooter before the shooting and determined he was not a danger. So would a "red flag" law have prevented it? Besides, Florida now has a more robust red flag law in place. And you can tell the NRA opposes that law because they've challenged it in court. Wait, they haven't done that?
Yes of course. I'm just saying there's little incentive to compromise for gunowners. I think Atomheartbevo's main point is that, if gunowners do not accede to some/most/all demands of the majority of the gun control side, then the result will be a backlash that will cause massive loss to the gunowners. I don't think the data supports his argument, but it's not an unreasonable argument to make.