comment: >
  
  The spirit of the law was that handguns should be on the NFA, and SBRs needed to be too so people can’t cut a rifle to handgun size to circumvent the handgun restriction. But handguns got taken out, and we’re left with this nonsensical mess.
context: Im going out on a limb here and will say that I don't think the approach here is dumb, but that the quagmire of rules, rights and regulations can only result in weird and strange rules in the end. 
  I can see why the ATF would want to close the loophole for pistol braces, especially since they are such a blatant way of breaking the spirit of the law while technically being inside it. You even mentioned how they marketing itself acknowledges this. Personally I have never seen anybody actually using a pistol brace for its intended use either online or in person before I saw your linked picture.
  Anyway: They want to change those rules. They can't just outright ban them, because the ATF can't make new laws and there is nothing unlawful about pistol braces. Besides there are actually some who needs them for their intended purpose.
  This means they have to find another way to regulate them. And SBR's are where pistol braces are most widely used so it makes sense to go at it from that angle. So the ATF deems: "All pistol stabilising braces are now rifle stocks". This is pretty nifty as it accomplishes two things. 1: Now a lot of "pistols" are now SBR's unless they adhere to the two pages with 8 questions you linked to and has to be regulated through tax stamps 2. People who needs a pistol brace are no longer discriminated against and can use them for their intended use.
  Now I won't go into the whole "tax stamp" thing because frankly it is such an odd concept to me and besides I can't understand people who are willing to spend hundreds or even thousands for a SBR only to try to skirt the law to save $200. But that is besides the point. For some weird reason people have to pay this tax for a SBR and the ATF are the ones who apparently can define what a SBR is.
  But the end result is that if people has to pay a tax stamp to have a stock anyway then they will chose a proper one and not one that is slightly-less-than-ideal, meaning that pistol braces will slowly only be used for their original purpose. Problems regarding pistol braces are now solved according to the ATF.
  So while the end result might be confusing their approach makes a lot of sense imo. 
  Caveat: Im not from the US, so my view on gun laws and gun culture might not be 100% up to date. >
  
  The spirit of the law was that handguns should be on the NFA, and SBRs needed to be too so people can’t cut a rifle to handgun size to circumvent the handgun restriction. But handguns got taken out, and we’re left with this nonsensical mess. >
  
  I actually didn't know that handguns were included in the initial draft.  I always thought the SBR rules targeted Tommy Guns specifically, but now it seems they're just an artifact of forgotten handgun regulation.  Interesting. >
  
  When you get to a machine gun, it’s just defined as a machine gun, it doesn’t matter how long the barrel is. >
  
  I mean I’m pretty cynical when it comes to the ATF so take it with a grain of salt. But anyway, the ATF wants it to be confusing, they want it to seem scary and on some level they want people to be accidentally committing felony weapons violations. They want it confusing and scary so people are turned off on the idea and don’t get it, they want people committing felonies on accident so if someone get popped for something small it turns into a big deal and it turn deters more people from getting them.
  So if you look at it for face value, yes it’s stupid because it doesn’t really define anything. But if you look at through the lens of they don’t want you to have it, this is the best option short of banning it. >
  
  I'm apparently more cynical than you: the ATF wants them confusing so that when expedient, any gun owner has a pretty good chance of being found guilty of some gun crime. >
  
  I mean, I don’t see how requiring a “tax stamp” isn’t already infringement in the first place. In spirit, if the government is allowed to have Comanche gunships, then the populace is allowed to have them, too.  Not sure why bracing a gun against your shoulder somehow amounts to a necessary exception to people’s rights. 
  I guess in order to frame this as a direct response to your view, it isn’t the ATF’s rules being arbitrary and confusing that make it dumb, since the NFA is already a violation of Constitutional rights. Their intent is already to abuse their power to exert authority they were never supposed to have in the first place, so them doing so via this new rule is par for the course, “working as intended,” so to speak. >
  
  There's nothing to change. It is stupid. It looks good to morons who know nothing about guns because Gov "did something about gun violence" and a minority of gun owners will be affected by this. Still unfair to those gun owners and the law makes zero sense but it's not going to motivate the entirety of gun owners to vote against Dems. >
  
  For the record, they haven’t waived the tax. They’ve put it into forbearance, meaning you don’t have to pay it now but they can come collect any time they want. And you better believe the feds are gonna come collect >
  
  Pro-gun lobby fights any common sense attempts to restrict weapons. They are supported by republican politicians who take campaign contributions (effectively bribes) from NRA and other pro-gun organizations. Though they use language around rights and constitutional amendments these groups essential purpose is to increase profits for the billion dollar arms corporations.   
  The government attempts to regulate firearms, but they are severely limited in ways that firearms can be regulated because of constant resistance by pro-gun lobbyists and politicians. So of course the regulations are weird and don't make sense. Which the pro-gun people get to complain about and the cycle continues.   
  If American government could pass the kind of common sense regulations on firearms that exist in every other developed country (which have lower rates of homicide and firearm deaths...weird)  then these kinds of wacky regulations wouldn't exist. Pro gun people can't have it both ways 1) fighting any kind of regulation on firearms and 2) complain that the regulations which do exist are weird or ineffective. They need to choose one path. >
  
  
  Pro-gun lobby fights any common sense attempts to restrict weapons.
  
  Rights advocates, which is mainly regular people donating their money, fights attempts to restrict rights, and many of the laws are anything but common sense. Take the SBR restriction, there is literally no logical reason for it to be in the NFA. No reason was given for the inclusion of suppressors either. 
  
  They are supported by republican politicians who take campaign contributions (effectively bribes) from NRA and other pro-gun organizations. 
  
  Did you know Bloomberg alone, just him, spent about the same getting anti-gun Democrats elected in the 2018 midterm election as the NRA (using donations from its five million members) spent in all elections from 2012 through 2018? The big money and bribes are on the anti-gun side. 
  
  these groups essential purpose is to increase profits for the billion dollar arms corporations
  
  If the Democrats passed their universal background check, it would be a huge boon to the industry. It raises the price of used guns, lowering the price difference between them and new guns, and removes the convenience of not having to go to a gun store. It also guarantees greatly increased consumer presence at gun stores. Yet rights advocates oppose it. 
  
  The government attempts to regulate firearms, but they are severely limited in ways that firearms can be regulated because of constant resistance by pro-gun lobbyists and politicians.
  
  In the same way some Republicans are finding it hard to pass abortion bans because the pro-choice lobby resists them. This is a good thing that the people lobby to stop rights restrictions. 
  
  If American government could pass the kind of common sense regulations on firearms
  
  Yeah, we need to get SBRs and SBSs off the NFA to stop the idiotic situation that is the subject of this post. That's common sense. >
  
  Im going out on a limb here and will say that I don't think the approach here is dumb, but that the quagmire of rules, rights and regulations can only result in weird and strange rules in the end. 
  I can see why the ATF would want to close the loophole for pistol braces, especially since they are such a blatant way of breaking the spirit of the law while technically being inside it. You even mentioned how they marketing itself acknowledges this. Personally I have never seen anybody actually using a pistol brace for its intended use either online or in person before I saw your linked picture.
  Anyway: They want to change those rules. They can't just outright ban them, because the ATF can't make new laws and there is nothing unlawful about pistol braces. Besides there are actually some who needs them for their intended purpose.
  This means they have to find another way to regulate them. And SBR's are where pistol braces are most widely used so it makes sense to go at it from that angle. So the ATF deems: "All pistol stabilising braces are now rifle stocks". This is pretty nifty as it accomplishes two things. 1: Now a lot of "pistols" are now SBR's unless they adhere to the two pages with 8 questions you linked to and has to be regulated through tax stamps 2. People who needs a pistol brace are no longer discriminated against and can use them for their intended use.
  Now I won't go into the whole "tax stamp" thing because frankly it is such an odd concept to me and besides I can't understand people who are willing to spend hundreds or even thousands for a SBR only to try to skirt the law to save $200. But that is besides the point. For some weird reason people have to pay this tax for a SBR and the ATF are the ones who apparently can define what a SBR is.
  But the end result is that if people has to pay a tax stamp to have a stock anyway then they will chose a proper one and not one that is slightly-less-than-ideal, meaning that pistol braces will slowly only be used for their original purpose. Problems regarding pistol braces are now solved according to the ATF.
  So while the end result might be confusing their approach makes a lot of sense imo. 
  Caveat: Im not from the US, so my view on gun laws and gun culture might not be 100% up to date.