Page 3 of 8

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
by carlson1
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
by anygunanywhere
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:18 pm
by The Annoyed Man
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. If I my suppressors are confiscated, I lose a slight tactical advantage in a home defense scenario. If my AR15 is confiscated, I lose ALL tactical advantage in a home defense scenario. For me personally, it isn’t worth either my life, or taking some LEO's life, in order to prevent him from confiscating my suppressors if they are banned. I can easily and fairly cheaply replace them without seeking gov’t permission, and I’ll have them if/when the flag goes up. However, a ban on semi automatic militia rifles would be where I draw the line. If the national gov’t attempts to confiscate them all, then CW2 has started, and I’ll run up the Jolly Roger. I had AR15s and other tactically oriented firearms long before I ever got my first suppressor. If I have to be loud again to shoot those guns at a public range, so be it. I’d rather shoot suppressed, but I’m not going to jail over it. If the flag goes up, then all bets are off, the fedgov’t will have lost ALL legitimacy (to which it is becoming perilously close already, anyway), and I’ll feel free to use an "illicit" suppressor, mounted to an "illicit” militia rifle while helping to restore the legitimate republic. I’m getting old, and I’ve had a good life. If this is how I exit this life, then I’m OK with that.....as long as I can take some orcs and goblins with me. But a muffler for my rifle isn’t worth that price.

That’s MY personal line in the sand. But everyone has to decide for themselves where that line in the sand is.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:53 pm
by Bitter Clinger
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
Now.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm
by anygunanywhere
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
by Bitter Clinger
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:07 pm
by jason812
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
I'm going to say currently besides bumpstocks, we have been making grounds at the federal and state level. While not where we should be according to the Constitution, we actually haven't been eroding guns rights at a state or federal level in the past few years. It seems with all the rhetoric, we hear constantly, that we are actually losing when the fact is we are not gaining back what was taken away decades ago. Because many other states have passed Constitutional carry and Texas has not, it seems like we are losing. We are not restoring the 2nd Amendment as fast as I (and I'm sure many others) would like.

Historically, yes, there are multiple erosions of the 2nd Amendment. Most of these happened before I was born or still not old enough to even buy a firearm. I would say these are infringements more than an erosion as they are not new.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.
So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:28 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Bitter Clinger wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:23 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Not only did I fill out the forms, pay the $200 tax and wait months to be able to bail my SBR out of the safe at my FFL, but now I need to submit a properly filled out form to the ATF and wait weeks for permission to take my SBR across state lines to attend a training clinic. What part of shall not be infringed am I enjoying right about now?
So your version of a "slow erosion" ended in 1934.

Chas.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm
by anygunanywhere
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.
So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.
To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement. The NRA backed bump stock ban.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.
So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.
To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**
You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:41 pm
by anygunanywhere
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:35 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:30 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:24 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:07 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:27 pm
anygunanywhere wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:14 pm
carlson1 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:06 pm
jason812 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:52 pm
They can ban them all they want. It will seriously tick me off, but it won’t stop me from having one if I want one. I know where to buy solvent traps, and I know how to make a suppressor. My son is a very highly qualified machinist. Making our own parts off the books is not a problem....if we have to.
:iagree:
They are not hard to make. Even easier if you have the right tools and know how to use them. :coolgleamA:

Bump stocks were not a sword to die on, are suppressors?
Bump stocks not worth dying for, suppressors not worth dying for, low round magazines not worth dying for, ammo not worth dying for, carrying a firearm outside your house not worth dying for, etc.... where do we say NO?
At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. It is time the other side gets cut. Multiple times. Our side is tired of losing. And don’t even say the word compromise.
You say that "our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, . . ." Please list the specific erosion(s) you mean. Generalizations are easy to state, but I'm interested in the specific laws/restrictions.

Chas.
Bump Stocks. That is an erosion. First the ATF ruled they were not machine guns. Now they are machine guns.

I would like to hear about all of the advances we have achieved at the federal level in the last two years.
So your "slow erosion" consists of one thing -- bump stocks.

Chas.
To the hundreds of thousands of patriots who own them, Charles, this is a big deal. It DOES speak volumes if you ask them. It is an erosion. Whether or not you hold this as a big deal is your opinion and it really doesn't matter if I wrote a book on erosion of 2A rights or gave you one example, the bump stock ban is an infringement.

I asked for advances we gained at the federal level in the last two years.

**CRICKETS**
You expressly stated "At the rate our 2A rights are slowly being eroded, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. One event, bump stocks, is neither 1,000 cuts nor a slow "erosion." My point is the Chicken Little approach doesn't help advance Second Amendment rights, especially when you conspicuously ignore progress on that front.

As for your two-year question; 1) I didn't claim any claims as did you; and 2) of course you want to limit any claims of advancement of firearms rights to two years because you know there have been several since the 1968 Gun Control act or the 1934 NFA.

Chas.
My approach is not a Chicken Little approach. I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. so please stop mischaracterizing my comments. The bump stock ban is a Trump presidency ban. Give me Trump presidency advancements in our 2A freedoms. I never brought up the NFA or GCA. You did. I'm certain I could mischaracterize your claim of advancements since the GCA and NFA. THE ATF is still in full force. Everything banned and regulated by the NFA and GCA are still banned and regulated. The Feds have not let up one bit. Oh wait!! Obama lets us carry in National Parks!! Halleluia!! We get to carry on land that we, American Citizens Own!

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm
by rotor
Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

Re: Trump: Banning Suppressors?

Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm
by G.A. Heath
rotor wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm
Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.
While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.