08-12-2019, 04:59 AM
stanc Wrote:Some compromise. They "take" machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and various other weapons, but decide to relent on handguns, and you consider that a "give"??? ROFL.I guess not paying a $200 transfer tax on a every handgun purchase doesn't seem to be much of a win to you, but it beat the alternative. Why the NRA never fought this more would have to be explained by someone with more historical knowledge than me on the inner workings of the NRA during the 1930's. Maybe the NRA made the best deal they could make considering the political climate of the day, or a corrupt collaboration bettween the NRA leadership and politicians, or the NRA's incompetence. The bump stock ban has a similar tone as does the soon to be red flag laws.
That's not giving anything. That's just not taking as much as they originally wanted. I'll say it again: There has been no give and take; it's been all taking, and some of us want them to take more.
stanc Wrote:Correction: Some of us want to give them more, without even trying to put up a fight.Whom might that be?
stanc Wrote:There's nothing to think about. Banning semi-autos versus mandatory training isn't even an option being discussed by politicians or anti-gun groups.I never said it was. I was just hashing around ideas to checkmate the anti's talking point for banning semi autos.