TexasCHLforum.com

I agree that any back-down from the administration is a ruse. Perhaps they misjudged the support/outrage they thought that they'd have with the news cycle's undivided attention on dead children.

Or maybe they've been thinking 10 steps ahead all along: Use Sandy Hook as an excuse to propose far-reaching and unprecedented restrictions knowing that they won't get passed. The proposals get the NRA & other groups' members fired up. The attention is hot & heavy. Pro 2As are geared up for a fight. Pull the proposals citing lack of overall public support. The NRA & pro-2As celebrate the "victory" & look forward to life returning to normal. Things cool off. Attention gets focused elsewhere. Life is humming along. Then after a couple of years when nobody's looking, a new set of proposals slips into the congressional agenda. But there's not a lot of opposition this time because any talk of new gun control measures will be met with "I thought we already took care of that, it didn't go anywhere". So the measures get passed quietly & we don't realize it until it's already the law of the land.

Regarding the side-issue of compromise - show me where the anti-2As have given up anything or event offered to give up anything and then we can talk. As has already been pointed out, compromise by definition is a discussion where BOTH sides relinquish something of value. The idea in a compromise is to achieve a mutually beneficial position. Can anyone tell me how enhanced/expanded background checks will benefit our side? Or how about reduced capacity magazines, how does that benefit our side? Basically, none of the provisions that are currently being talked about provide any better position for the pro-2A side. And starting out at a draconian position & reducing it to a less draconian position isn't compromise either.