Bumpfire ban

So about the bumpfire stocks.
To me, it makes sense that they would be made illegal as they were made to circumvent a piece of legislation in a way. That's being consistent. I know it's not the same as having a fully functioning automatic gun. I say this without regard to my belief on the existing legislation.
Now, for my belief on the legislation:
It shouldn't exist in the first place.
With regard to the move by Trump,
it seems smart. An easy gimme to the gun grabbers to shut them up. It also seems weak and capitulating like another piece of the amendment 2 pie is gone (even though it technically was gone until the workaround).

The real danger here appears to be the background check piece. There is no possibility of a good end when the government starts determining who is mentally fit.

Your thoughts?

When you ban guns you only take them from the people who follow the law, so it shouldn't matter
>Ban piece that turns pew to pew pew pew
>Make a model and 3dprint it
>you now went from a law abiding citizen to an undercover criminal

People will just continue to use a rubber band. Good luck stopping that.

Exactly. Hence my belief that the legislation restricting the rights of law abiding citizens shouldn't exist.
How effective is that anyway? I've never seen it in person.

Bumpstocks are pretty silly and worthless anyway, so it's a pretty good thing to troll about. But a firm position of making no legal changes makes the satanic communists really mad, so that's where I'm at.

I honestly do not give one fuck about bump stocks or their legality.

You are the problem.
It's a slippery slope, one we've been sliding down far too long.

I don't have any personal experience with them. Are they unreliable? They seem like they'd be detrimental to stability on top of what comes from automatic fire.
So you believe that bumpfire stocks should be protected then? Do you think it's a move further down the slope considering the obstacles to getting fully automatic weapons to begin with?

>me, it makes sense that they would be made illegal as they were made to circumvent a piece of legislation in a way.
So if the government passed a law banning "assault rifles" you'd be fine with giving yours up because it was a law and if you kept yours you'd be breaking it?

BTW, people seem to be forgetting that there's already an FBI background check when you're buying from an FFL, and it include a box to check if you're mentally ill. If you've never bought a gun before you might not have encountered this.

What's really dangerous about the mentally ill bit is connecting medical records into the database (they're doing that anyway, which is the real underlying reason to repeal Obamacare). The folks pushing on the SSRI thing have the much better angle here.

>I don't have any personal experience with them. Are they unreliable?
Their entire method of operation is to allow the gun to rattle around in its furniture in order to repeatedly pull the trigger via the recoil motion. You can do the same thing by hand. It's about as accurate as you'd expect, i.e. it's not.

I think at the very least, all "small" arms need to be unregulated and unrestricted.
Even up to tanks and artillery, but I'd support a watchlist for that. Let us have our artillery, but keep us on a watchlist since it's a dangerous world, I'm fine with that "compromise".
Unfortunately, for us law-abiding citizens we don't get to have nice things.

Feel free to ignore me though, I'm the kind of 2nd amendment zealot who thinks we should be able to arm our tanks and jets (which we can buy.)

I didn't say I was OK with it. I was acknowledging the consistency.
Figures.

Bumpstocks just don't really work all that well unless you just want to dump a whole mag in some general direction ASAP. Depending on the gun and trigger setup, you can bumpfire without any modification just by learning to hold it so the recoil causes your finger to hit the trigger again. People do this on YouTube to show off, if you're interested.

I'll admit I haven't given serious thought to heavy arms in the hands of law abiding citizens. It would be fantastic to live in a world where that was viable though, as an initial thought.

>I didn't say I was OK with it. I was acknowledging the consistency.
The consistency of an unconstitutional law.

You just need to pay for the tax stamp and go through an extra background check if you want full auto or any of the other bigger stuff that isn't totally off limits. I'd keep that out of the conversation lest somebody gets the idea to outlaw those things altogether.

Unfortunately, you aren't allowed to produce a new autosear and lightning links are illegal.
So the cost ends up being astronomical.

I'd be for loosening it up more, personally. As you say, all it really does in practice is make it a rich man's hobby.

Right.

All gun laws are unconstitutional.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

Yup.

This honestly.