[marktwain]

“The But the fallacy is that on many issues (the 2nd Amendment is a great example), one side (the gun-grabbers) has nothing to give up, so ANY compromise benefits them; conversely, pro-2nd Amendment folks HAVE something, and any compromise takes away some of that something, so they always lose.”

You are close. But, the “gun grabbers” have plenty to give up. They could give up the Lautenberg amendment. They could give up the Gun Free School Zone act. They could give up the 1986 ban on registering more automatics than currently exist. They could give up the insane regulation of gun mufflers and short barrelled rifles and shotguns.

They refuse to consider any of those reasonable compromises because the MSM refuses to mention them.

It is a war of definitions, with the liars in the MSM the gravest enemy.

[ought-six]

They are not giving up anything, because it does not impact them. They give up nothing tangible, and the intangibles are not theirs anyway. Give up a gun-free zone? The property owner, and the business owner, et als still retain the right to allow what they want on their premises, and to ban what they don’t want, as long as they do not prohibit protected classes of people. I business owner can ban from his premnises loud music played by a black homosexual, but he can’t ban the black homosexual.