So we're held to a 1930 understanding of intent in the creation of a class of firearm based solely on physical characteristics of one aspect of a system, and not the result of the entire system?

"Oh, it's not the gun, it's not the bumnpstock, it's the person using their body with the bumpstock in just the right way to create a system that results in the same output as a machine gun! Well then, that's perfectly legal!"

BTW - a machine gun you pull the trigger once. You get LOTS of fast output. Same if you use a bumpstock.

You continue to illustrate a lack of basic comprehension of what's been said.

#21 for #19.

Physically incorrect. This is why it fails. With a bumpstock you get 1 bullet per trigger pull. It does not in any way modify the fire control group to fire more than 1 bullet per trigger pull. The bumpstock effect can be done without a bumpstock.

Oh cut the -------- arleady. You pull the trigger once. Your finger doesn't move. The rifle moves because of the bumpstock. The result is that you get a rapid trigger action without YOU doing a damn thing. Do you want me to go into the physics in mass, acceleraration, etc. that determine the rate of discharge?

"All you are showing is that the trigger is being pulled each time. "

The trigger isn't being pulled by the person. it's crystal clear what's going on. It is the gun that is bouncing back and forth in a sleeve (the bumpstock) and the finger is rigidly fixed in place on the bumpstock. If you ever get a chance to fire a bumpstock you'll understand exactly what I'm saying and what you are seeing in the vid I posted.