Upon reflection, much of your argument against bump stocks, justifying trumps banning them, sounds familiar. Oh yes, brady et all say there is no need for semi automatic weapons' or high capacity magazines just as you say there is no need for bump stocks. Reminds me of the days when NRA hunters said they did not care if semi auto weapons were banned as they did not use them for hunting. And, contrary to your experiences, I have found bump stocks to be as accurate as full auto AR 15s and Ak 47s.( Now the ak 74, with a bump stock was to me uncontrollable, but others disagree).In this election, it is very clear cut. Biden has sworn to destroy the 2nd Amendment and take away your Right to Bear Arms. While I agree with you on the bump stocks, there is no doubt they fall within a gray area that unfortunately until it is further clarified by the SCOTUS is no longer so gray.
I view the 2nd Amendment as it was defined by SCOTUS members in Heller. It's primary purpose is defense from tyranny for the people. The First Amendment allows us to discuss openly to include when to use the Second Amendment.
That also means, just as Heller noted, that the citizenry maintaining a rifle that is competitive on the modern battlefield is the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
We do not need fully automatic weapons to be fully competitive. We can still own them, just fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. However they are not necessary to that competitive standard.
Bump Stocks and the subsequent ban IMHO does not put President Trump on any "Anti-Second Amendment" platform.
Bump Stocks are a very hard sell as to any military purpose. It is a waste of ammunition. In order for automatic fire to militarily useful it must do two things. First is provide a degree of accuracy. Bump stocks do not provide that degree of accuracy IMHO. You may feel differently and that is ok.
What cannot be disputed is the second requirement of a militarily useful fully automatic fire is sustainability. That is why fully automatic weapons are engineered to withstand the heat and forces found in sustained automatic fire. Even then, those forces are so high that fully automatic weapons are limited in their sustained fire rates. The M249 SAW for example is 85 rounds per minute sustained fire. The M240B GPMG is limited to 100 rounds per minute, 6-9 round burst, with 4-5 seconds cooling between burst and a change in barrels every 10 minutes.
There is no bump stock fitted rifle that militarily useful as an automatic weapon. Again, it is a gimmicky way to waste ammunition. It might be fun but the ban does not represent a threat to the intent of the 2nd Amendment IMHO. In the current environment in fighting for our rights, I do not see Bump Stocks as something worthy of falling upon our swords. I do not think it is even a good case to pursue before the SCOTUS. The technical reason I listed would be presented and we could very well find find further restrictions depending on how the SCOTUS ruled.
The point is, minimizing the ban on bump stocks as of no use, in support or an excuse for trump banning them sounds more and more like political partisan posturing. I said and say again, I do not trust any politicians on protecting our 2en amendment rights and it is naïve to think this guy, based on his record, is any better than the rest.