Quote Originally Posted by theGinsue View Post
He's also good with banning bump stocks. I don't own a bump stock nor any other device which can "increase the rate of fire" as I've never felt the need to have one and don't want to be careless with my ammo. Still, there are non-device techniques that can be employed to effectively perform the same function as a bump stock. So, then, banning bump stocks is just another feel good measure which does nothing potentially positive but puts restrictions on citizens enjoyment of their rights. Anyone who, when discussing firearms restrictions says "I don't agree with this part, but I'm okay with this other part" is no friend of the Second Amendment. Any restriction is an infringement and that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
From a legal standpoint, if a semi-auto can already be bump-fired without a device, isn’t that the “rate of fire”

This issue with this “rate of fire” is the pro shooters like Jerry M show that he can fire a semi-auto AR almost as fast as a full auto or maybe even the same speed.

Rate of fire on a machine gun is based upon how fast the entire mechanical system can recover from one shot and fire the next.

This is mostly a mass/spring/cartridge energy problem (as long as the rest of the mechanism can keep up).

So from a legal stain point what the base “rate of fire”? The “accelerators” in the law is “increase the rate of fire”