What would really be needed for a honest compromise on a firearms issue?

What would be needed was a sense among those coming to the table that: “I know what I really need to secure and if I get those things this deal will be good enough and I will hold to it.”

That sort of sentiment can sometimes be achieved in politics but it almost never lasts. Politics attracts the ambitious and there is always the temptation for the ambitious to push for that extra regulation to be repealed or to impose that extra requirement in order to build up a power base.

It is also true on the matter of firearms that there are large organizations that need conflict with an enemy to maintain their employees and funding. The head of the ‘Special Office’ never wants to admit that his office has won the battle it was set up to win, because if the battle is won, the Special Office is likely to be disbanded. And being retired after having won holds no attraction for the ambitious. Better to DERP and keep the cash and publicity flowing.