The general idea of "a path forward" is that some sort of compromise made now will reduce the conflict between pro-gun and anti-gun forces in the future.
It's incorrect, because it's based on a fallacy; the people we compromise with today are not the people who will attack us tomorrow. There is no one unified group to negotiate with. There is no good will that gets carried over.
Nobody talks about a lasting compromise to end the tensions between pro-life and pro-choice people. Nobody thinks compromise is going to ease the debates about illegal immigration, or affirmative action, or anything else. The argument does not stop because somebody else made an agreement yesterday.
The anti-gun folks will never be happy with us having guns. This is obvious, and it's not going to change in our lifetimes.
You may have seen this pop up on reddit and/or elsewhere. It's from a pro-firearms person it seems. Lots of conversation over on a couple sub-reddits. Interesting. Not decided on it myself.