So one of the Fudds interviewed said this: “If you take somebody like me whose other life is shooting — could I sit down with people and compromise and maybe give up some stuff I really didn’t want to (give up)? Probably, to make it work,” So I have to ask what is the other side going to give up? Why is it our side has to give something up?
The Fudd also went on to say he "expressed a hunger to find some common ground in the debate." There is no common ground in this debate, the other side wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
This is interesting as well "...but his views aren’t wildly different from many Republican-leaning hunters and gun owners interviewed for this story." I wonder if they cherry-picked the responses that they got from their interviews to portray a false narrative that there are a lot of gun owners out there that favor restrictions. I am pretty sure that if we put up a pole here amongst registered members we would get strikingly different results than what that reporter got.
Then there is this gem "Recob said he thought it was time for gun owners to make some common-sense concessions — "something that actually works". I think what he really means to say is appeasement. How did appeasement work out for the pre World War II Europeans when they tried it with Hitler? Not so well. It won't work out well for us either if we try to appease these fascists that are trying to take our 2nd Amendment rights.