There's an oft repeated line that comes from the gun control camp....aside from the emotional framing and illogical narratives. The gun control camp asks "why won't the gun rights camp just 'compromise' on this issue?" This is typically accompanied by immeasurable euphemisms such as "reasonable" and "common sense", but those are designed to appeal to the uninformed.
My issue is with the core question of "compromise". Every time I have asked what is to follow below, I either haven't received any answer, or have received simply more of the same issued script.
The 2nd Amendment [to highlight the context, one of the enumerated Constitutional rights guaranteed to the People] is, and has historically been the most infringed upon, restricted and regulated Constitutional right of the bunch. The 2nd Amendment has had limitations imposed upon the People, to an extent unfathomable to the very same critics were they to be likewise imposed upon any other Constitutional right.
So, let's remember the purpose and intent on the 2nd Amendment, that the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Yes, I know someone will invariably come along [again] and proffer the Militia = National Guard = collective right canard; they can't help it, its part of the script. But let's dispense for a moment with the history of such infringement to date and use the Amendment as it is realistically protected and restricted currently.
Now, let's consider the gun control position. It does vary, publicly. I have my doubts that anyone who employs the gun control narrative really supports the 2nd Amendment, though many make a point of saying so. It typically goes like this: "I support the 2nd Amendment, but.....". To be generous, let's presume that there are those who would disarm the citizen body wholly and completely; and there are those who would see the citizen able to own a fowling piece, or perhaps a target rifle locked at a State sanctioned shooting club. Perhaps there are even a few who merely think that licensing and taxing private transactions between citizens [again incompatible with any other right], and the registration of firearms is a good idea...though we've seen the result of that happening in other nations.
So...taking both positions into consideration...my question is two-part but simple: 1. What is the "compromise" sought by the gun control camp? Not the nickel and dime legislation designed to merely set precedence for further restriction, but the end state?
And 2. What "compromise has the gun control camp shown to date? Remember where the positions started and are currently, along the philosophical X Axis.
All rational and mature comments are welcome, but I've been waiting for so long, for anyone from the gun control camp to offer up a cogent answer.