Hypothetical here. Given that handguns overwhelmingly make up the majority of guns used in crime, would you support (or, at least, not resist) legislation aimed at curbing their use in crime if there were sufficient concessions made 'on the other side?' Ill propose an example: Legislation: Mandatory registration of all sales/purchases of handguns (and handguns only) nationwide. Provisions: -CCW holders bump to the top of the list if there are any bureaucratic backlogs. -The registration will be funded entirely via donations from gun control groups, foundations and individual supporters of gun control. *You* do not pay a cent into it, or it is anulled. If the funding runs out, it is anulled. -The registration is a trial run. It runs for, lets say, 4 years. After which the law dies, and must be relegislated based upon a cost/benefit analysis of the success of the 4 year trial run. -So long as this trial run registration is in effect, no new gun control laws may be put before congress, or this trial registration law is immediately anulled. I know registration is a logical fallacy, and I know the concessions list here would be entirely unnacceptible to the majority of the gun control crowd. This is simply a 'proof of concept' post. Are we 'gun nuts' open to the concept of working with those who truly seek 'sensible gun laws' even when we think they are doomed to failure? Are there other concessions you would add to this list that would persuade you to let the trial run pass? Or is there no room for any compromise with the left on guns whatsoever? What say you, fellow gun nuts?