A Gun Control Compromise

I have been accused of being an extremist in defense of the right to own and to carry, anywhere you see fit, any type of weapon whatsoever, in any way you wish, without asking permission from anyone. 

 I suppose it is time to reconsider and announce I am ready to accept "reasonable gun laws". 

So.... which 50% of the victim disarmament laws are we going to repeal this year? 

Since my long-term goal is to remove all legal restrictions from guns, I am willing to use the same logic that the merchants of victimhood use when telling me that I must compromise. I will not demand the immediate repeal of all federal, state, and local laws against gun owners, but will compromise and only seek the removal of half of them. This year. 

Compromise means meeting halfway; not banning this type of gun today, then that type of gun tomorrow, followed by registration of handguns next week. 

 No, we gun owners compromised when the 1934 National Firearms Treason was committed. 

 Then again in 1968 and regularly since then. This "compromise" is only moving in one direction, and that isn't compromise at all. 

 A true compromise would have said you want the 1934 NFA and once you got that, there would be no more victim disarmament laws proposed ever again. Not this sneaky, incremental banning of self defense. It is your turn to accept compromise. 

 I am truly willing to meet you half way. 

 I would even accept the repeal of only one victim disarmament law as long as I get to choose which one. 

 If you choose, then I stand by my demand for abolishing 50% of them. 

 Well Sarah Brady; Chucky-Doll Schumer; Mike Bloomberg; which gun owner vilification laws will you help me get rid of? You couldn't possibly oppose this plan, could you? All we are asking for is "reasonable restrictions". Only an extremist would refuse to compromise. Right?