When Ohio Governor Mike DeWine revealed his plan to address gun violence, a lot of people were paying attention. After all, Ohio was the home of a deadly mass shooting in Dayton back in August. It’s what pressure the Ohio governor to even look at potential gun control policies in the first place.

Anti-gunners were licking their chops. They saw the potential for a big win in the state, one they could potentially use to leverage other red states into adopting gun control policies.

Now, they’re quite upset with DeWine because his plan doesn’t go far enough.

In the discussion, DeWine defended the gun policy proposal he introduced Monday, amid pushback from gun control advocates that the would-be law doesn’t go far enough. DeWine’s proposal, called STRONG Ohio, includes voluntary background checks in private gun sales, and calls for more enforcement of existing laws. Some critics have argued that the governor’s position is softer and has less teeth than what he had originally promised in the wake of the deadly shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District.

DeWine said he has to protect the Second Amendment and also be aware of what would pass the Ohio legislature.

“This improves what we have dramatically and this is something we can get passed,” DeWine said on Cincinnati Edition.

And honestly, that last part is what anti-gunners who are complaining are missing.

The truth of the matter is that pro-gun legislators want none of it. We understand that what happened in Dayton was a failure of humanity, not a failure of government. That killer was breaking the laws already on the books just by having that gun and anyone familiar with those laws already knows it.

DeWine is trying to walk a tightrope here. He’s trying to introduce measures that have a shot at passing rather than proposing pie-in-the-sky gun control that not only would die in committee but would also damage his ability to pass anything else.

They ignore that voluntary background checks are something that might actually pass other places. Frankly, I like the idea. I don’t want to sell my gun to a criminal, but I don’t want to be required to have a background check if I sell a gun to my father, a retired police officer who has never spent a single night in jail. Such a measure might actually make a difference since I suspect a number of people would take advantage of it should it be voluntary. A lot wouldn’t, for understandable reasons, but a lot would.

But nope. It doesn’t place the yoke of tyranny on our necks, so it’s simply not good enough for the gun grabbers.

And they wonder why we don’t negotiate with them anymore. Well, this is why. Not only will they not give us anything, they never respect what ground anyone is willing to give up unless they get the whole enchilada. They’re mad at DeWine because he’s not pushing universal background checks and full-on red flag laws.

That’s what it’s always been about with them. It’s why there’s no point in actually talking with them and giving them anything, even these measures that DeWine is backing.

It’s only a matter of time before they push for more and we all know it.