Slippery Slope

The issue of bump-fire stocks has created an entirely new aspect of the Second Amendment.

Whether a bump-fire stock (see below) obscures the fine line between  "semi-automatic fire" and "Full automatic fire" is either an excuse for the Federales to impose new restrictions on the (supposedly) impermeable Second Amendment,  or it's a "loophole" which law-abiding American Citizens are using to grandfather a new generation of (more or less) "AUTOMATIC WEAPONS" which had not been anticipated by previous law-makers; that is the question.

I personally have no use for a "Bump-Fire stock".  I'm not "flock-shooting" so I have no dog in this hunt.

But (if and) when the Federal Government arbitrarily decrees that a technological innovation "cleverly" eludes their published laws, they either need to change their laws (imposing the possibility of a "grandfather" effect on previously owned weapons) or they need to think whether their Federal mandate covers their ass.   

Which it does not.

If I read this clearly, Uncle Sam has three options; any of which will probably not meet their goal of keeping fully-automatic weapons out of the hands of law-abiding AMERICANS:

(1) Write a bunch of rules specific to "Bump Stocks" which will be obviated as soon as the firearms manufacturers change one tiny feature of their product:
(2) write some other rules which SPECIFICALLY deny the "Bump Stocks" by name;
(3) give it up, and let the manufacturers build whatever they want;  and ... by the way ... delete the "full automatic" rules currently in place.

My best guess is that none of these arbitrary measures well be adopted, or enacted as LAW, because people will always find a way.     It's better to just delete all the fully-automatic weapons laws and let Americans seek their own best protection. 

What ... gangsters don't already have machine guns?
Why shouldn't we?

Want to start a rebellion?

Impose the  most strict laws possible, then wait and see how many people disobey the law; you will have lawsuits up the ass trying to resist the natural instinct of otherwise law-abiding citizens who recognize a bad law when they see it.   Many people, otherwise law-abiding, will deliberately violate laws  which they believe stomp on the Constitutional Rights which we have all been assured will be protected by our elected representatives.

Gun Owners Foundation Submits Comments to ATF Over Proposed Bump Stock Ban: If this administration outlaws bump stocks, without regard for the limitations on ATF authority under federal law, it will put into place a slippery slope for future, anti-gun presidents. If ATF chooses to ignore the statutory definition of a machinegun [sic], and instead creates a new definition based on anything that “increases the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm, then far more is at risk than mere bump stocks.

Would-be lawmakers want to pay close attention to the Maverick personalities of the American Citizen.   Many people would deliberately disobey such ... a law if only to register their disgust at the distrust of their government to assume that owning a "questionable" firearm is equivalent to violent intentions.

I've been to war, and I didn't like it; but when it comes to American Constitutional Freedoms, any administrative official who tramples on our (narrowly defined) Rights must be prepared to discuss just WHY he doesn't trust the honor of the people who voted him into office.

That, which is specifically prohibited, is prohibited.
That which is not prohibited, is allowed.

vs:

That which is specifically allowed, is  allowed;
that which is not specifically allowed, is prohibited.

Which world-state would YOU prefer?