If 'compromise' meant give and take, I would in a heartbeat take a requirement for 16 hours of training in exchange for getting rid of some totally nonsensical gun laws, like 15" barrel length needing a $200 stamp, or restrictions that both sides agree are totally cosmetic.
If we're still on the subject of this original example of compromise, I have to disagree with the concept. For most of us on here, the 16 hours of training would be no big deal. Most of the people with CCLs on the board more than likely had to go through that much mandatory training. Even those who don't probably has gone through that much training voluntarily.
However, I implore everyone to look at this from the perspective from someone who is not a gun enthusiast, or who is living at or near the poverty line. That 16 hours doesn't seem like much to someone who has disposable time to devote to something like this, but to the person working two jobs, or to those who are putting themselves through college, this can be a major roadblock to firearms ownership.
In essence, it would be making it harder for a large part of the population to practice their constitutional rights in exchange for being able to get an SBR without a tax stamp.
You might argue that they're more dangerous to themselves and their families if they're untrained, and I would agree that it's generally more unsafe to be untrained and armed, but it is most definitely not the case of everyone who has not taken a basics class.
I feel a lot of the proposed compromises by the gun community boil down to that. It makes it more difficult for the person who does not have disposable time or income to have the ability to protect themselves or their families.
Now, as this relates to the topic at large
...just make us sound like out of touch extremists
This is why I argue like I do. I am tired of seeing the pro-RKBA side stomp their feet and say "it's my right" without arguing any other point. Of course I feel it's my right to own a gun without any mandated training. I feel it's my right to own an SBR without having to wait over a year and pay an extra $200 on the gun. I don't feel like I should have to argue with people in order to keep the rights I have as a human being. But until something changes in the fundamental nature of we humans that makes us disagree with each other, I will have to continue to argue my points.
Now, on the original topic, I fully disagree with the thought that regulation does not equal infringement. I recognize the fact that regulation will exist for a very long time, if not forever, but that does not mean I agree with said regulations.
One of the worst offenses that the article makes, in my opinion, is that it leaves the pro-2a side open to arguments from gun control supporters in that it is another example for them to use when it comes to "gun owners supporting gun control" and that nonsense.
I will not be renewing my subscription to G&A, and will make sure to let them know why.