montana 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.stanc Wrote:thought we were talking about federal law, but okay, in Montana concealed carry is now legal. What compromises were made to get it?Gun owners compromised in 1934, other wise handguns would have been banned with machineguns.
Oh, golly gee. FOPA got rid of the minor inconvenience of having to record ammo sales, and effectively lost the right to own machine guns. You seriously call that a "give"???
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.
Correction: Some of us want to give them more, without even trying to put up a fight.
montana Wrote:I'm not saying I like or even agree with these compromises, but if banning semi autos or mandatory training is involved, I would have to think long and hard before I would say no.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.