This comic is what is called a “logical analogy”. We take an argument - a real argument that someone made, not something that we just made up - and replace the thing they are talking about (guns) with another thing (ballistic missiles). Then we say, “look, your argument would also support ballistic missiles, so unless you actually support ballistic missiles, you have to admit there is something wrong with your argument.”
You say there is no compromise left to be had, but that is nonsense. People who want gun regulation would be very happy to pass a variety of reasonable regulations, but the anti-regulation crowd sees any regulation as a slippery slope towards seizure of all guns. A boingboing linked article explained this well. People assume that other people are like them. So people who oppose all gun regulation assume that people who are for regulation as just a ideological as they are. It isn’t true. People who want gun regulation, on the other hand, can’t understand why people who opposed it won’t meet them halfway, won’t make any kind of reasonable compromise.
I’m pretty sure that if someone says there is no rational middle ground in the gun control debate, you can be about 99% certain they are against gun control. Saying there is no rational voice in a debate when you actually take a stance in it is practically admitting that your beliefs are irrational.
