We never compromised on true assault rifles - Miller didn't show up to court, and the US Govt attorney was able to present his side of the story with no opposing views, otherwise NFA of '34 would likely have died on the spot, and we wouldn't be having these national "discussion". We the people didn't compromise - the government compromised for us.
When someone asks, "why do you NEED a rifle like that", I can answer, "why do you feel the need to control what I own? "
I have had this discussion with several anti's at work, and I have so far won one over to my side, and given up on another who fights with emotion, and throws out any logic that doesn't suit him.
Logic - disarmed people will still attack children, as seen in China with mass stabbings of kindergarten age children.
Answer - That doesn't matter, nobody cares about China.
Logic - Over 500 children are killed by gunfire every year in America. Well over 4,000
die every year from accidental drownings. Do you support a ban on swimming pools?
Answer - That doesn't matter, we're talking about guns, not swimming pools, don't try to confuse the issue.
Logic - The Center for Disease Control, National Research Council and the National Institute of Justice stated the old AWB had absolutely no discernible impact on crime whatsoever, and the ONLY people affected were law abiding gun owners. Criminals, by definition, break the laws, and if they are willing to break the laws on armed robbery, rape and murder, a gun charge bothers them not one whit.
Answer - That doesn't matter, because I feel threatened by your rifle, just because you have one, and you should get rid of it so I can feel better.
I have zero need to define "need" to anyone who believes they can ask me intrusive questions about my personal possessions, no more than I require anyone to explain why they "need" something so demonstrably dangerous as a home swimming pool, or a fast car, or steak knives, or any other legal product they choose to own.
The trend in the states shows quite clearly that this is a manufactured "crisis", as the trends have been towards freedom, evinced by Constitutional Carry laws being enacted in 5 states already, when 30 years ago it was 1 state with Constitutional Carry, and CCW was a dream for most.
Last "answer", as it's been stated that so called "assault rifles" aren't useful for hunting. Wrong again. Here in AZ we repealed the magazine limit for hunting, so this rifle,
...will be a coyote hunting rifle. Cower in fear - those are 30 round magazines! Yes, and I will use them while hunting, first because nobody MAKES a magazine smaller than 30 in the US, and second, because that's what the rifle was made to use. It also doubles as a home defense rifle, and is a heck of a lot of fun at the range.
Here is a shotgun that gives Feinstien the collywobbles, being semi-auto, has a collapsible stock and a magazine greater than 5.
OK, the magazine was an oops - I had no idea it was going to stick out that far when I ordered it like that.
The stock is a four position adjustable length deal so my wife and son can also use it, and guess what - I was rabbit hunting with it that day. Legally.
When I hear talk of, "let's compromise, or we'll lose everything", well, that's just defeatist talk. Let's DO a leftists style compromise, the one where one side loses something and the other side gains?
We'll repeal NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, and they can keep manual typewriters only. Sounds stupid? Look at the way they word "compromise", and you will see it is EXACTLY what they offer, and "we win, you lose" deal.
If you want to buy rifles that have only five round magazines, move to Canada - they "compromised".