Does this in any way help preserve a "fundamental civil right?"

Is there any logical limit to future "public safety" based infringements?

Robert Levy presents a cogent case for why further controls will be virtually without effect, yet he proposes areas of "compromise" - essentially one-way concessions. 

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2016/gun-control-grounds-compromise

so yet another "compromise" proposal that is all one sided. 

let us acknowledge that the gun show loop hole does not exist, but still expect us to compromise on the gun show loop hole, to prevent illegal sales that are not occurring.

put the high capacity magazine ban back in place, while acknowledging that there are "There are hundreds of millions of magazines in circulation with a capacity of 10 rounds or more."  so he desires us to "compromise" on a ban that has been proven to have no effect and is for appearances only, a feel good item.  You need to compromise because it will make me feel good that I have done something.

and the first section, the meat of the matter, is the foot in the door section. "The task, therefore, is to identify semi-automatic weapons that are not commonly used and not needed for lawful purposes. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went too far, but a more limited version might be viable."

who gets to decide ?  based on what factors ? what statistics ? gonna randomly look in my gun safe and pick and choose ? What emotionally laden social media meme will be the driving force this week on what is to be banned ?  one time listing chiseled into stone in Federal law listing make and model ?  or some politician adding to the list whenever they choose ? 

compromise
noun com·pro·mise \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\
Simple Definition of compromise

    : a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute

    : something that combines the qualities of two different things

    : a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary


Where is the reciprocal ? 
what are "they" willing to give up ?
Their entire view of compromise is they ban A, B and C and not ban D, E and F, at this time.

 


No.

That article was surprising from Cato. To me it indicates a cuckservative trend toward apologetics and appeasement rather than principle.

gun control-----FU

Lawdog's "Gun Control Cake" sums it up nicely


EDIT:
my above reaction may be a bit gutteral for the genteel folk
Chief45 & Kaso's reply had a little more finesse

Grant constitutional carry and we can start talking. Oh no? Screw you then.

Unfortunately, Mr. Levy's Cato Institute is largely populated by intellectual elitists who have arrived at the collective conclusion that their poop doesn't stink.   Its believe its called "group think" these days but they are no more immune to it than the rest of us. 

The fatal flaw in his piece is apparent from the outset.  The Constitution, in its second amendment clearly states the limitations on governmental interference with the clause; " .  .  . , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".   Everything he then proceeds to discuss is, by definition, an infringement.  All existing gun laws since the passage of the Bill of Rights are infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.   The fact that we, the people, have been willing to suffer some of these infringements of our right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain peaceful relations with some of our countrymen cannot be overlooked in any discussion of the matter.   

I could type out my proposed compromise, but the mods would probably have a stroke. So I'll refrain, but feel free to use your imaginations 

State your opinion, don't be vague and half tell us it  .

I could type out my proposed compromise, but the mods would probably have a stroke. So I'll refrain, but feel free to use your imaginations 

 

Na. Obviously advocating anything illegal ain't kosher by board rules. And I'm sure you'd never want to violate any of the hundreds of thousands of local, state, federal and regulatory laws on the books that you know all by heart. And would never state an intention of violating in an electronic medium. Obviously.

As none of us would.   

Definitely. 

You clearly have not met any of the mods. 

I believe I met up with Lupinus down south once. Nice guy.