Compromise? Sounds like abject surrender to me

Ed Campbell seems to believe that his membership in the NRA puts him in a position to negotiate gun rights and gun laws on the behalf of all American gun owners. I disagree.

As a responsible gun owner and a logical person, I am writing to say that -- because I value life, the right of all Virginians to a safe commonwealth, and my personal right to keep and bear arms -- the time has come for some enhancements or additions to the laws that govern access to firearms.

Infringements on fundamental liberties cannot be "enhanced"--they can only be exacerbated.

Obviously, a system of uncontrolled access to guns ceased to work years ago.

What's "obvious" to me is that there has been no "system of uncontrolled access to guns" for many decades (since at least 1934, anyway), so I would argue that such a system did not "cease to work" so much as it ceased to exist.

However, our Constitution gives us the right to bear them.

Our Constitution does not "give" us that right, or any other--it codifies the guarantee of rights that inhere in us by virtue of our humanity.

Contention aside, the time has come for compromise. I think there is plenty of room for rational compromise.

There is no "compromising" on fundamental liberties--one either demands his rights, or meekly submits to being subjugated.

And now we get to the meat of Mr. Campbell's "compromise." He's generously willing to give up more than I'm listing here--these are just the "highlights":

High-capacity magazine ban. I own a Super Nine, or high-capacity 9mm. It can carry 16 rounds, plus one. It never seemed inappropriate, until now. Even for personal defense, a simple eight-round magazine would be fine. Also, a high-capacity magazine ban for all weapons would negate the need for a gun ban.

So a magazine that was appropriate before becomes verboten because some sick punk uses similar magazines for evil? Besides, "negate the need for a gun ban"? There's no such "need" to be negated.

Concealed carry in schools for veterans and law enforcement. This just makes good sense. To get a concealed carry permit in Virginia requires a special application, a full background check and a judge's approval. An additional class, made available to veterans in school, law-enforcement officers and classroom teachers, would remove the restriction on concealed carry on school premises. This should apply only to institutions of higher learning, not anywhere minors make up the student body.

Oh, goody--at least the Only Ones' rights are to be respected.

Enhanced background checks on all purchases, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, criminal background and psychiatric history.

Well, that makes sense--we certainly don't want speeders to be able to arm themselves.

Centralized databases to make background checks more accurate and effective.

Because what's the point of living in a police state, if it's not an efficient police state?

Make a hunting license mandatory for firearms purchase. At the very least, this will help to ensure gun owners are properly trained in firearms safety.

Because we all know that the Second Amendment exists to protect our right to hunt.

Additional funds for disarming illegal, unregistered gun owners.

"Unregistered gun owners"? So I guess mandatory registration was a little detail of his proposal that Campbell forgot to mention.

To be fair, Campbell wants the civilian disarmament advocates to do their share of compromising, as well.

Preserve the Tiahrt Amendment. Gun tracing doesn't work. Banning the most "popular" guns for crime simply creates the next "popular" gun. This is also just going to cause a lot of lawsuits, and don't we have enough of those? Plus, the NRA really wants to win this one, so let them have it, OK?

Well, that doesn't seem like much of a concession--after all, the Tiahrt Amendment is already in force, and has been for several years. For it to be a compromise, wouldn't the other side have to give up something it already has?

No waiting period for bolt-action, shotguns (nonrepeating) and revolvers less than eight shots.

Come back to me when that sentence has been translated into comprehensible English.

No waiting for concealed carry permit holders.

Well that's nice--a government permission slip authorizing the exercise of a fundamental human right would even let you do so right away. How generous.

No gun bans.

Now we're talking. Put me down for a quad-mount, belt-fed Browning M2HB .50 caliber machine gun. Of course, that's a bit heavy and bulky for carrying around on one's person, for that, how about the AA-12 fully-automatic shotgun (with the FRAG-12 explosive, armor-piercing, fragmenting shells, please)? Or is that not quite what you meant by "no gun bans"?

Mr. Campbell's "compromise" is one that even Neville Chamberlain would have rejected out of hand.