Originally Posted by whoflungdo
You and your bad analogies again...
A proper one would be like when at war and you are under siege. With your line of thinking when the enemy comes under the white flag with the terms of the truce, They say we want all your land, all your women, and all your property. You counter with, just take half of our land. The other side gets something they want but don't deserve and never had to begin without offering up anything and YOU give up something that should be yours. This is the compromise you keep offering.
You have to start the process from where you actually are - not from some ideological dreamland of where you think you should be.
Face the fact that some of our rights have been "infringed".
You are saying there is nothing in the existing gun laws you want to get rid of and would be willing to trade for UBGC?
One of the BIG mistakes many make is assuming the other side will not give on some things.
How about if (in a state that schools are gun free zones) we propose extensive background checks & training for teachers that want to (their choice) CC while in school?
Would you agree to these BGCs? Or
Would you stand on principle and say no BGC should be required?
I have been in many negotiations with people I hated - that does not mean I refused to negotiate.
Few things feel better than negotiating a good deal with an enemy. By good deal I mean one where you get way more and give up way less.