It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:
So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."
Do that, then we’ll talk. [emphasis in original]
I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).
However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.
"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"
If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.
Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.
Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.