would compromise in ways that are politically popular and generally supported even by the vast majority of gun owners (expanded background checks, magazine limits, etc.).

I'm not going to bother explaining that to you but will give you a hypothetical example that may resonate a bit more in your one-track mind. Imagine a candidate in San Francisco supports a resolution that roughly 75% of women and 95% of men support, which would require physician approval and determination of a risk to maternal health before an abortion is conducted in the third trimester of pregnancy. Not particularly controversial, and overwhelmingly supported by voters. Along comes the NARAL/Planned Parenthood mafia in the next primary. They bankroll an alternative candidate and spend 10 million dollars on a vicious ad campaign saying the incumbent wants to take away a woman's right to choose, equipped with all sorts of lies and hyperbole about women dying from back-alley abortions or being forced to carry a baby to term. Maybe even a Handmaid's Tale parody. The incumbent tries to explain that he/she really only supports a very nuanced, non-controversial reform but all the voters hear is ANTI CHOICE!!!!! and they have an alternative who campaigns on promising to stand up for a woman's right to choose.

Basically that but with guns, to rural Americans who may support the nuanced version, but certainly don't want Uncle Sam coming for grampappy's shotgun.