My 2 cents. Recently the GOP went all in on stopping Obamacare, they obstructed, refused to negotiate, filibustered etc and as a result had ZERO input on the details of the final bill. Then they lost in 2012 and it is pretty much a given that Obamacare is the law of the land.
We should not repeat this mistake, right now there is still a good deal of fear among politicians of the NRA and gun owners who vote. If gun owners appears to be uncaring extremist, we are begging to lose crucial public support. The NRA did everything in its power to defeat Obama in 2012 and he still won. Now is the time for strategic maneuvers not suicidal bayonet charges.
That's one of the more thoughtful arguments I've seen for working with the enemy, but this is a constitutionally affirmed human right; Medical care language doesn't even exist in the constitution, so arguments for or against Obamacare on that fundamental basis have to be extensions of other parts of the constitution.
We don't have to (or want to) come across as "uncaring extremists". Fact is, while the entire country suffered once for Newtown, we gun owners are fixin' to suffer twice, and for a whole lot longer. Is that fair? Should we accept
some punishment for this lunatic's actions? No, of course not. I didn't kill the little kids at that school, and neither did any other gun owner. Lanza was a prohibited person, but it didn't stop him. Why some people seem to believe that where a bunch of laws failed one more will work is beyond me. Of course, the true anti's have no illusions that gun control will actually do anything to reduce violent crime; They don't care. For them, this is not about stopping violence. It's about gun grabbing, plain and simple, and they've been laying in wait for a tragedy bloody enough and gut wrenching enough to exploit. They knew it would come, just like it will come again, with or without more gun laws. And you can bet that when it does, they'll be on their soap box again, demanding more restrictions.
Not compromising doesn't mean simply crossing our arms, spouting off some rhetoric and refusing to engage in meaningful discourse with the opposition or fence sitters. It means we have to stand fast and use logic and reason in conjuction with articulate and compassionate verbiage to attenuate their argument until it is too weak to convince. It's tedious, it's laborious, but it's effective. It may mean taking the time to compose your own page-long response to a regurgitated sound bite on Facebook or some other social site or bulletin board. This is the commitment we must have.
But coming to the table with defeat on our faces and concessions in our minds? That will not help our cause. We are 100% on defense here. We stand to gain nothing and lose much, so compromise is not an appropriate noun to desrcibe the gun control debate. They seek to take what we have and give nothing in return.