Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.

That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.

And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.

Interesting coincidence that today's "Quote of the Day" on Joe Huffman's blog is about this very topic. He quotes former NRA leader Neal Knox's book "The Gun Rights War", and then adds a comment of his own. Please go to the original to see all the active links.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/23/quote-of-the-day-james-a-garfield/

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison. [And I'll add: AMEN!!]
I think I heard some black people saying that in the 1960s who were satisfied riding in the back of the bus... never.

You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.

I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.

We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?

Trade?  You mean like, "If you give me your car, I'll let you keep your house?"  That kind of trade?

Send me a list of all your valuables, and I'll let you know which ones I'd like to trade with you.

Suppressors are illegal here FYI. No one is talking about trading something you have to keep something you have. Trade something you have for something you don't have but want more.

You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.

I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.

We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?

You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.

I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.

We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?

You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.

I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.

We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade.

The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?

Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.

he doesn't bow to it...

Matter of opinion.  They are his words.

Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.

Or, spend that time making something legal that should have never been banned in the first place.

Acquiescence is how freedom dies.

If you live in Hawaii, you're bowing to it to.
We all bow to it until we become a true political force and play politics.
Learn the rules then play the game.

I'd like more details about this trade.
So all NFA items become legal in Hawaii in exchange for?

This isn't acquiescence, it is being realistic

I was thinking specifically of legalized suppressors in exchange for outlawing bumpstocks. I hadn't thought about what other NFA items could be asked for.

I didn't "avoid" anything. Where did you ask me, or anyone else for that matter, a question about "where the line should be drawn"? Where did you even imply you were asking me a question?

But I'll answer anyway now that you've let me know that you wanted to know (By the way, for future reference, I won't know you're asking me a question unless you ask me a question). Since one of the "central components" of the Second Amendment is to protect the pre-existing right of self-defense (see: SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald) against both individual criminal(s) aggression and government tyrannical oppression, any weapon used by the government to suppress the rights of its citizens should be available to its citizens for self-defense. 

Good for you. But I didn't present any such dichotomy. You made that up. In other words, a strawman (again).

I don't think anything is going to change Espero's mind (short of him seeing and believing some future polling result that he will certainly lose an upcoming election unless he supports (in actions, not words) a "hardline" pro Second Amendment civil rights stance). Might as well state the facts that they are oath-breakers, and as a consequence ought to be removed from office, tried, convicted, and jailed. They swore to uphold our right to bear arms. They have failed to take any actions to restore our totally violated right to legally bear arms (various bills to create "shall issue CCW", and public requests for bills to establish open carry, permitless carry, etc.), despite being repeatedly asked to, and they have taken actions to further violate our right to bear arms (bills to ask Congress to defeat national CCW reciprocity, etc.). Just the facts.

You've only got two more days until the deadline for submitting legislation. Have you submitted a bill or suggested a bill to a legislator with your "compromise" "trade"? Why don't you post a copy of it here with your next post? I'd certainly like to read it, and be especially interested in which anti Second Amendment legislator you got to sponsor a bill to legalize suppressors (not just for hunting I presume) and submit it.

Again an opinion.  Your realism will end up with you owning one double barrel shotgun and 3 marked and accounted for by the government in your house.

No range.  No hobby. No freedom as my forefathers intended for the entire country.  Not just the mainland.

See for yourself in the U.K. example.