Is compromise a a goal in and of itself?

I agree with the basic premise, that it's unlikely that gun control advocates will trade gun-free zones in schools for a national red flag law.

But I think there's a real problem here with assuming that a compromise in and of itself, is worthwhile.

Who benefits from kids open carrying in school or or from free and open sale of guns to anyone without question?

I do get the pointt that most Federalist readers are inherently self interested and thus are pretty undisposed in general to listen to public policy arguments based on the common good, because, well, what's in it for them?

But, even though it's persuasive to those who put their own interests above others, isn't it a bit over the top to not offer even an argument about why free and open distribution of deadly weapons without background checks or open carry by minors in schools serves a valid public interest?

Why should those who want to see fewer dead kids compromise with those who don't give a flying f about dead kids?

This piece, I find pretty unimpressive.




https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/there-is-no-bipartisan-gun-compromise-in-the-works-just-gop-capitulation/