I feel a bumpstock ban is wrong and may generate more problems than people realize - and may lead to other bans.
A bump stock does NOT alter the nature of a rifle. These do not convert semi-auto rifles into machine guns; the actual classification of the rifle is unaltered. You still only get one bullet per trigger pull. They simply take advantage of the recoil to enable the trigger to be pulled again much more quickly.
This is why a ban concerns me - how would they word it? Since these stocks don’t actually change the nature of the rifle, would such a ban have to be worded to dictate how fast you can pull a trigger? Or make it illegal to alter rifles to enable faster trigger pulls?
Look at Jerry Miculek for example. He can fire the full cylinder of a revolver, reload, and then fire off another complete cylinder in less time than it took you to read this. What’s the difference between his skills and a bump-stock? In looking at his records, it’s specified which firearm has had no work done on it, so likely some of these have had the trigger pulls lightened. So combine that with his unbelievable training and you have someone who can make a revolver seem like a “machine gun”
So I’m thinking… if they ban stocks that enable you to pull triggers faster, what’s to stop such a ban from including altering a firearm trigger to enable faster & lighter pulls? None of these alterations change the actual nature/classification of the firearm, but since to SJWs and liberals they “appear” to be machine guns, that seems to be what people are pushing for as their justification.
That’s not an appropriate justification for creating any law. Once you start legislating appearances you end up going past the “slippery slope” and straight into a landslide.