Roger that. What's next? Think about it.....

Exactly. I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

Well, I don’t like them, so it’s okay if they take them.

Sheep.

The Atkin's Accelerator (10/22 bumpstock) was banned and confiscated in similar fashion in 2006 after the ATF had approved it for sale. I don't know why any of this is a surprise.

For those who haven't seen this yet...

In the Atkins case the ATF claimed they were sent a non working example which garnered approval, then when a retail example was examined, the approval was reversed. Other reversals have been made since. (ATI's faux silencers on their GSG5 is one recent example)

The difference here is no such difference between submitted example and retail items exists.

Whatever the big money in the swamp want is what's next.

Sheeple! It’s a shame really.... what’s next?

will the 30 round magazine be a "big loss"

Ownership of AR style rifles be a big loss?

Whats next?

If you want it get it NOW.

I have zero interest in bump stocks, but what should have happened is to have them classified as Class 3 items, not banned. And if you have to give them up because you don't have a class 3 license, they should have had to reimburse you at the market price. Government should not be able to force you to throw away something that you legally purchased.

What should have happened was absolutely nothing. You can do the same thing with a rubberband. It didn't alter the one pull/one shot stipulation.

Of course, I'm fine with nothing being done. But if there is a certain classification for guns that can perform a certain way, and there exists a device that was created to make guns outside of that class function very similarly to guns inside that class, then I can see how you'd put the same restrictions on that device as you do the firearms already within the class. That's all I'm saying is that from a logical consistency standpoint, that's the most I could see you doing.

P.s. you're still not invited to the long range match

Long way from done....... but

For the record I have sold all my guns......

At least you get it. You don't have to want a bumpstock or understand why others would. Its how it was done and the legal precedent it sets. They can change the definition of anything they want now to take it away. From here they can use this exact same scenario to classify all semi-auto weapons as machine guns just like they have done with bump stocks. Oh, they cant do that because a semi-auto isn't a machine gun? Well neither is the piece of plastic called a bump stock but that is exactly what they have done.

I can do the same thing with most any semi-auto gun using my belt loop, a rubber band or on certain semi-autos, just my finger. So since they can be made to function very similarly to guns outside that class you mentioned, then you are ok with semi-auto guns being banned. or as restricted as fully auto weapons?