Sorry, you have me confused with Monty Hall.
So your definition of compromise is you taking?
This is starting to feel juusst a little troll-ish, but … okay.
I’m unclear on how you’ve “already compromised several times.” Perhaps you could list them?
My compromise? (Full disclosure: you could justly regard it as no compromise, as it doesn’t give you anything you don’t already have under the 2A. Be that as it may.) After a rigorous background check and a 30-day waiting period, a private citizen should be permitted to purchase all of the pistols and long guns that their heart desires. Not included in their wish list are not only ordinance and automatic weapons, but any “assault-style” weapons whose only design purpose is to mow down human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible. I fully realize and accept how vague that definition is. TS. That’s my compromise. Take it or leave it. 
National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (1934)
Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Gun Control Act of 1968** ( GCA or GCA68 )
Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988
Gun-Free School Zones Act ( GFSZA )
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
Nine times at the Centgov level alone.
And that gun control act of '68 gave birth to the most useless and right violating organizations in US history.
What is your part of the compromise?
First one is an assault rifle.
Second one is not by the lefts definition.
Truth: both are the exact same rifle, called the Mini-14. The first one just has a black plastic stock. It’s just cosmetic.
Neither is “designed to mow down a lot of people”.
You missed the part where I acknowledged the vagueness of my definition.
Slap a 30-round banana clip into either of those. What alternative purpose beyond quick, efficient human killing will it serve? Taking out a fluffle of marauding cottontails?
I got nothin’, it’s all gimme, gimme, gimme. Tired of the headlines, I guess.
The size of the magazine is irrelevant unless there’s another armed shooter returning fire. There’s not a thing in the world a person could do in the amount of time it takes to swap out a magazine.
Edit: what I mean is. In any mass shooting you can think of, it wouldn’t make any difference if a shooter had twelve 10 round mags, or four 30 round mags. It would be the same result.
Larger magazines are a convenience and generally cheaper since you can buy fewer of them.
Cowardice knows no geographical limits but when not in a gun free zone, this coward chose to kill children.
Authorities don’t believe there is a shooter at large. An investigation is ongoing.
Yeah. Not so much the planet though.
No shooter at large because it was likely just another law abiding gun owner that suddenly wasn’t who killed the others and then killed him/herself.
That’s how your non-gun free zones tend to work out in this country.
That’s how you desire it to be but that isn’t the truth and statistics prove it. You should replace your feelings with facts. Here…lemme help; According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings.
lol - I can understand you wanting to ignore the mass shootings all over the country that happen in gun zones like that house in Michigan. It makes you FEEL better about supporting the insane cries for more guns in this country.
Hogs. Have a nice day.
Good reason to violate my rights.
What, you’re the only one who gets to be passionately inflexible? 
I already gave you a list of 9 times I was “flexible.”
Let’s be honest. As far as I can tell, you don’t agree with any of those infringements. You didn’t have a choice - that don’t make you flexible. That’s like saying I’m flexible about Trump being president.
I just admitted I’m inflexible. But I will respect the law of the land, and work to change it if I can.
I do have a choice. Several in fact.
