In the gun control debate, we often have people wondering just why can’t the two sides find some kind of compromise. Most of those are hardcore anti-gunners who know damn good and well that the only “compromise” they’re willing to discuss is them taking just a slightly smaller bite out of our rights than they wanted in the first place, but some are people who really think they’re the middle ground.

Now, sometimes these folks are just anti-gunners trying to appear reasonable, but sometimes they’re people who simply don’t know any better.

For example, I came across a letter to the editor where someone who describes themselves as the “sensible center” of the gun control debate. Frankly, if this is the center of the debate, we have a lot of work to do.

Dear Editor:

In light of the “2nd Amendment sanctuary cities” movement, a few observations from what I hope is the sensible center.

Why would any law-abiding responsible gun owner or would-be owner feel impacted by universal background checks? The 2nd amendment starts with the words “a well-regulated militia.” Shouldn’t that imply that there are certain people who should not be gun owners? The background checks need to incorporate mental health data (psych practitioners already have certain mandated reporting requirements). Also, the background check needs to incorporate domestic violence perps and cyber-bullies and cyber-stalkers, for the sake of too many women victims. Lastly, why should someone on the “no fly” list be able to get a gun?

OK, there’s a lot to unpack in this one paragraph–and there’s a lot more to this letter than this–but we’re going to try.

First, the problem with universal background checks isn’t that gun rights advocates don’t think they can pass them. I know for a fact I can and so do most of the other folks. The problem is that it’s a barrier to any transfer. It means that I can’t loan a gun to a friend in need without legally transferring ownership to them. It means my son would have to undergo a background check to inherit my guns when I pass. It means all sorts of things that most folks don’t realize. It’s not just about a background check when a gun is sold.

Next, the phrase “well-regulated militia” has been much debated, but the phrase “well-regulated” didn’t mean then what it does now. It simply meant properly functioning. As such, it has no bearing on who should and shouldn’t get to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Of course, this is someone who doesn’t seem to realize that relevant mental health data is already reported for background check purposes. However, those only include those who have been adjudicated as being unfit to exercise their rights by a court. You see, you can’t have practitioners as the only point for determining that simply because so many aren’t unbiased sources. They could decide none of their patients are fit to have a gun, which is a problem and would drive a lot of people away from seeking much-needed help.

Honestly, with just this first paragraph, we see a whole slew of proposals that indicate not only does the letter writer not understand current law, but that they also have no respect for the Second Amendment. Hell, they seem to think the “no-fly” list is a viable determiner of who should and shouldn’t buy a gun, but nevermind that infants have been listed on the “no-fly” list. The list is based primarily on suspicion, not on evidence.

The problem is, this individual continues past this horrible understanding and doubles down on the stupid.

Why would any law-abiding gun-owner be impacted by a ban on mega-magazines? If you need more than 10 rounds at a time to kill a deer you shouldn’t be hunting. You don’t use a mega magazine for target shooting competition nor is it a viable device for indoor home security.

Why would any law-abiding gun owner be impacted by a ban on “mega-magazines?” Probably because I prefer not to have to reload quite as often and can foresee situations where I may be faced with multiple attackers. The Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting. It has to do with tyranny, including The Tyranny of the Thug.

Frankly, though, the last bit about how such magazines aren’t “a viable device for indoor home security” betrays them.

You see, so far what we’ve seen from the “sensible center” isn’t really a middle ground. What we’ve seen is a litany of anti-gun talking points. It may not be as extreme as some Democratic presidential candidate proposals, but they’re all talking points that have been pushed by anti-gun groups in recent years.

In fact, the only pro-gun suggestion offered by the letter writer comes in the next paragraph, and even it is immediately followed by anti-gun nonsense.

Assault weapons (the AR-15 and AK-47) present a more serious problem. People have bought them legally, they should not be confiscated. Yet the ongoing proliferation of these battlefield weapons is an increasing problem, especially for our brave law-enforcement personnel who often find themselves out-gunned. People need to come out of their tribal corners and deal seriously with this without the accompanying rhetoric.

The last sentence is especially hilarious considering what we’ve seen so far, which is nothing more than anti-gun tribal rhetoric. Especially after all but calling for a ban of the sale of the most popular rifle in the United States.

Yet this is someone who describes themselves as the “sensible center” of the gun debate.

Folks, what this means is that we’ve not done nearly enough. We’re not making our point. Yes, the media is against us. So what? They’ll always be against us. We can’t allow that to serve as an excuse.

Taking this person at their word, if this is what passes for the “sensible center” these days, we’re screwed. The only hope is to step up and counter this kind of nonsense with everything we have. We need to make it clear that nothing about this is sensible or the center of the debate.

Then again, there really isn’t a center of a debate like this. You have those who value our Second Amendment rights and varying degrees of those who don’t.