Over the years, I have witnessed a few handgunners whose shooting technique caused a particular handgun/ammunition combination to "Maxim." I had a nodding acquaintance with a man who owned a match-grade, semi-automatic pistol with which he had to be very deliberate in order to prevent firing a couple of rounds with "one" pull of the trigger, though there was nothing wrong with the firearm that was apparent to the eye. He asked a few of us to try and duplicate the problem, and none of us could get the gun to act up (IIRC, it only happened to him if there were a certain number of rounds in the magazine). Of course, off the pistol went to the manufacturer, and as far as I know, it worked fine for him afterward... I suspect that there wasn't ever anything wrong with it at all, other than that he and the pistol were a bad combination because of some (not so) simple physics.
Mr. niteowl77
Which is why supporting a ban will result in a ban on all semi autos.
Anyone who does not see this is a fool. Including the NRA.
Yes, exactly, and thank you for seeing my point. Just like every other fully automatic weapon that's ever been made or imagined since John Moses Browning increases the rate of fire using physics. That's the point of it, isn't it?
"Talk of restricting them is laughable because you can replicate the function of it by using your finger like the guy in the link above. "
That argument undermines itself. You first concede that the bump stock is a mechanism that increases the rate of fire "using physics", then you assert that a semiauto weapon can "replicate" that same accelerated rate of fire if the person operating it just uses their finger the right way.
So we've gone from what, let's say a fully automatic M16, to an AR15 equipped with a bump stock doing close to the same rate of fire "using physics", to some guileless dude in a "look at me!" video demonstrating that he can whup that trigger at about the same rate of fire, and they're really all the same thing. (That guy was a drummer when he was in the band and he had a really excellent single-stroke roll.) Never mind that he can't hit anything doing that.
"The other side" will to use this kind of reasoning against us, all under the rubric of existing law. They'll say that really they're all the same thing, a case that you just built for them, and they'll go for a ban on all semiauto firearms.
Now if you'd rather talk about the wisdom of the NFA of 1934 in general, or the 1968 law for that matter, that's fine with me.