Gun control supports keep complaining that the pro-Second Amendment side isn’t interested in compromise. They claim they don’t want to take away all of our guns, despite knowing damn good and well that at least some of them do.

However, we can’t give any ground. At all.

First, they do not want compromise. They’re not interested in giving us anything we want. They are willing to take a little less than what they want. That’s not a compromise.

Further, the same thing will keep happening over and over again. For example, take this editorial from Winnipeg.

Those who are committed to addressing firearms-related violence in Canada — including both homicides and suicides — tend to favour greater restriction on the types of weapons available to the public and the manner in which they can be legally obtained. Of particular interest to gun-control advocates are handguns and military-style assault rifles, neither of which have any real practical application for civilians, hunters or rural residents who keep firearms at hand to protect their livestock from predation.

Those who oppose gun control are inclined to fly into a bit of a tizzy at the mere utterance of the words, retreating to familiar cries that any discussion of weapons restriction represents “the thin edge of the wedge” in a process that will inevitably lead to the government “coming for your guns.”

There is, as evidenced by reactions to this week’s report that the federal government will consider an outright ban on certain firearms, simply no middle ground on which to have a measured, collaborative and hopefully productive conversation about guns.

…

Here’s what not one single person said in response to the mandate letter’s release: “An examination of that issue seems reasonable, given the perceived increase in gun-related violence in Canada; we should seek expertise from both sides and work toward a compromise that satisfies both proponents and opponents while at the same time making Canada safer for its citizens.”

No, keep in mind, at one time, Canada had gun laws only slightly more restrictive than the United States. They had plenty of guns, guns of all types, and fairly little crime.

However, they freaked over what crime they did have and started restricting guns.

Now, they’re talking about banning handguns completely. The line continues to be moved over and over again after gun control fails to address the crime that supposedly caused it to be considered in the first place.

In a way, Canada is a prime example of our future if gun grabbers get their way. They won’t be satisfied with a new law now. They’ll want another one next year, or the year after, or at some other point in the future. They’ll demand that we be reasonable, that we do like the Winnipeg Free Press says and “compromise.”

But the problem is, as I noted above, that compromise isn’t possible. The other side of this debate isn’t willing to give us a damn thing in return. If they said, “Tell you what, let’s ban bump stocks, but we’ll stop our opposition to you guys having suppressors,” then that’s a compromise. They get something they want, and we get something we want. Neither side is completely happy, but that’s the nature of compromise.

Instead, what Canada is looking at is a compromise where they, at best, only take some of the handguns rather than all of them.

Yeah. Sorry, but hard pass on that BS.

I’m not giving another inch simply because once I do, there will soon be a demand for me to do it again, and again, and again.

Not. Going. To. Happen.