Quote Originally Posted by SamuraiCO View Post
Well said Zund. We don't even know what will happen if the legislation is debated on. I would love to see amendments added for hearing protection act and reciprocity. I know the Dems will scream for a clean bill but F them. Bump stocks are a gimmick but if they were sacrificed for reciprocity, hearing protection act and reaffirming our rights to carry what we want in all states, no restrictions. Something similar to the civil rights to affirm what the constitution lays out and to undo state laws.

Just my 0.02 cents.
I would love to even see it suggested that this is possible. Thus far we haven't. Again, I have yet to see a true compromise gun law in my lifetime. I think the last one on record was 1968 where we got something for giving something. One could argue that opening up the registry in '86 was a compromise but that was temporary.

When you understand the actual goals of those involved you understand more about how this game is being played. Gun safety isn't an actual goal. Taking all guns out of your hands is.

So how does compromise fit in with that goal?

On the topic of bump stocks... Even if it were to be sacrificed for preserving semi-autos (in a parallel universe where this is possible) how would that look? To be effective they would need to prohibit "increasing the rate of fire" not just ban a single device. Which as we know is nuts because a semi-auto doesn't have a fixed rate of fire. Would they need to establish one?

Once established would it apply to pistols too?

The spirit of this is to decrease the speed/amount of rounds of bad person can fire in a mass murder event. If we legitimatize that, do mag bans now get more legitimacy? Hey, we only need two or three rounds to hunt, right?