The Miami Herald has a pretty strange definition of "compromise." Apparently in their world, compromise means "give up some of your rights because we want you to."
The Herald published an
editorial recently calling for such a "compromise." It's easy to see where their bias lies. Just look at [listen to] how they describe gun control advocates versus gun owners. They write:
"What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon at home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?
Could gun-rights people then concede that you don't need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody's friend? And that background checks and gun-safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn't totalitarianism any more than a driver's license is?"
Well I've got news for the Miami Herald, but they don't want to hear it. Their "compromise" sounds like more of the same old baloney ... blaming gun owners for the actions of criminals, demonizing certain types of firearms because you think they look "scary", and vilifying an industry that works every day with law enforcement to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
I think we can all agree that people who break the law should be punished, and that goes for illegal firearms traffickers. The problem with the Miami Herald is that they seem to believe that the way to make criminals obey laws is to pass more of them.
I've got a better idea for a compromise, Miami Herald: When you've displayed an honest effort to understand this issue, I'll have a reasonable discussion with you. But as long as your newspaper keeps attacking the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country, I'm going to expose your ignorant and contemptible bias every change I get.