Sounds reasonable but when has that option ever been on the table? Compromise has been one-way only and everyone in this debate should know that. Gun grabbers certainly do.
1934 > 1968 > 1986 > 1994
Notice how not a single piece of gun legislation ever protects guns/function outside of the ban. Nothing draws a definitive line. Would a bump stock ban also include language that semi-auto rifles are protected going forward?
It was implied after 1934 that firearms in common use were protected and gun control was only legitimate in restricting dangerous and unusual weapons. Since we can't seem to get this test re-instated there are no boundaries around what they can take.





