On inflexibility

Ralph Surette raises a point that I've been wondering about myself.

It's obvious enough why any talk about compromise on the long gun registry has thus far focused on ways to make the existing system less onerous, as it's originated entirely from leaders who favour keeping the registry. But why wouldn't the Cons even pretend to be interested in a compromise from the anti-registry perspective - i.e. scrapping the registry in exchange for improvements to other aspects of Canada's gun control regime to defuse the arguments for the registry itself?

(That is, aside from the obvious conclusion that they prefer keeping the registry around in its current form as a political football to doing anything that might actually improve matters.)

(Edit: fixed wording.)