Interesting title, albeit a bit misleading, since the compromise involves the death penalty, not guns. But it does raise a question none in power seem to ever ask themselves--or be held accountable for:
How can someone legitimately compromise that which is not theirs?
"Gun rights groups" would do well to remember this when they negotiate infringements with legislators, and come back telling us its the best scrap we can get, and that "politics is the art of compromise."
How can someone legitimately compromise that which is not theirs?
"Gun rights groups" would do well to remember this when they negotiate infringements with legislators, and come back telling us its the best scrap we can get, and that "politics is the art of compromise."