[alasdair_]

>Very much this. There hasn't been a gun rights "compromise" (or proposal for one) where democrats gave anything back in congress in ... well never. It's always more restrictions of existing rights.

This is actually a very good point. I wonder what the response would be to a Democrat-authored bill that (say) demanded universal background checks and proof of a firearms safety course completion and mandatory insurance like a driver's license that ALSO banned any restrictions on large magazine size and removed any restrictions on fully-automatic weapons, or something similar.

[R0b0t1]

Seeing how compromise didn't work and the history of abuse some of the restrictions you gave have seen (i.e. poor availability of classes, failure to issue in reasonable time, concerns about abuse of psychiatric diagnoses, or attaching a monetary cost to the exercise of a right) many will no longer settle for anything but the repeal of all restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Imagine carrying free speech insurance.

Most accept drivers licenses however the constitution grants the absolute right to travel in the same way it grants the right to speech. This has actually been used by the ACLU in an attempt to challenge no-fly lists, and hopefully drivers licenses will also be challenged.