It is difficult to have a reasonable argument, or road to a solution, when a major party in the discussion is unable to accept any concession and also has the money to buy politicians. Personally, as a life-long gun owner ( 12-guage shotgun, 30-06 rifle, and .32 hand gun) I am appalled that even the smallest adjustment to the law can be characterized as seizing personal freedom. Bump stocks, large magazines, and whatever, and it is all untouchable.
You know what else makes reasonable argument impossible? When one side of the debate has no idea what they're talking about nor what the other side has supported or does support.
For chrissakes, literally the first hit on any google search would give you this (from noted right-wing house organ CNN)
"The National Rifle Association announced Thursday that it supports a review of bump fire stocks to see if they are in accordance with federal law."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics ... index.html
Characterizing that stance as opposing any concession to something like bump stocks makes *you*, not them, look like the person shut off to any openness to discussion.
Yes, there has been opposition to some proposed legislation, but it's not been because of the bump-stock language- it's been because politicians can't pass anything without trying to piggy-back other things they like or don't like into it.
Further, this is becoming more and more obvious to the general public, which is why gun sales are going through the roof, and I, as a non-gun-owner and one who would welcome gun ownership becoming a gravely considered decision, am becoming frustrated with the inability of too many to remain rational.