In a legal and constitutional sense when can the second amendment be “activated, applied, nationally / locally used” against appropriate entities?

If I was a fed I’d be asking for a rally for an action; I am asking for a reason to application and the process that must take place before this is enacted.

I do not own guns, but I strongly believe in the second amendment as a force the citizenry can use against government tyranny given a worst case scenario. My wife does not like the second amendment, because she believes it leads to mass shootings. I accept a small micro-percentage of deaths due to mass shootings as the price of freedom. It is terrible, and I would be devastated if it happened to my own family, but I see it as an unavoidable consequence we have to live with if we want to be free.

I don't even want to have this discussion with my spouse, but when she brings up the topic I don't want to pretend I agree with her. I'm not looking for debate points, just curious if anyone has run into conflict around this issue and is able to navigate it away from interpersonal conflict when the person you have a relationship with brings up the topic.

The Second Amendment states:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms**, shall not be** infringed**."**

Several key components (aside from the ENTIRETY of the amendment) seem to be continually ignored or confused:

1. "keep" Arms - this word is not 'fluff' and was added by the authors for purpose. This is distinctly and intentionally separate from "bear Arms". This seem to be the actual point of focus of most anti-2A, gun control advocates - the restriction (or "infringement') on the actual ownership and possession of Arms, including the requirement of tax penalties as a form of infringement.

2. "bear Arms" - this, again, is intentionally different from "keep" Arms. Bearing Arms is about putting them to their intended purpose of defending of protecting and being in a state of readiness - i.e. locked and loaded. This MUST inherently include any ammunition or other related items or accessories required to make the Arms functional in this defense or protection action.

3. Arms - yes, it is capitalized. At the time of the writing on the 2nd Amendment, the term "Firearms" had been in use for some time (coined around 1640), so the lack of the use of the term "firearms' is telling in relation to the scope of permitted arms (much more VAST). The term "Arms" is old English, originating from the old French "Ares" which means "weapons of a warrior". That means cannons, ballista, rifles, machine guns, pistols, knives and swords, grenade launchers, tanks, etc.

4. Infringed - again a deliberate use of wording by the authors indicating that no amount of disallowance is to be permitted. They could have said "shall not be denied" but this could easily become quantified is a single weapon were permitted, closing the loophole. "Shall no be infringed" mean no amount of restriction is permitted.

​

We need to remind our lawmakers, the executive branch and the judicial branch SERVANTS that work for We The People of these facts and squash the gun-control language that purposefully obfuscates these facts. ANY gun control, including that which is already law, stands in repugnance to the Second Amendment.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the actual meaning of the text of the second amendment. When attempting to interpret the amendment, many arguments have been made by utilizing dictionary definitions of certain words or phrases, or arguing over technicalities of grammar.
But I think it is important to understand what matters most when interpreting any text: a text ultimately means nothing more than what its authors intended for it to mean. It doesn't really matter what pro-gun people or gun-control people or DC v Heller think the second amendment means; what matters is the purpose for which the authors created the amendment, and how it was meant to be employed. And the best way to determine that is to look at their available writings that are most pertinent to the topic. Here is the transcript of a debate held in the House of Representatives on the 17th and 20th of August 1789. The debate concerned an early draft of what would become the second amendment, worded as follows:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The entire debate is very informative to understanding the intent behind the second amendment. It is very notable that the entire discussion centers around militia duty, and not a single word is spoken about hunting, self-defense, sport shooting, or any other civilian gun use. One particular part of the discussion is illuminating in understanding the militia clause of the second amendment:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

This quote indicates that the militia clause of the second amendment is more than just a mere preface or intro to the following clause, but that the clause itself reinforces a certain duty upon the newly-formed national government. The militia clause in the second amendment apparently reinforces Congress's duty to regulate the state militias, as already established in the US Constitution, and with the added purpose of perserving the security and liberty of the individual states. This statement does not necessarily establish any new legal principle or stipulate any specific injunction, but serves as a kind of reminder or statement of duty to the newly formed national government in order to secure the confidence of the states who ratified the Constitution. This kind of statement is unique in the Bill of Rights, but not within the draft history of the second amendment. There exist other similar statements of purpose and duty of the government, such as this phrase that, in a Senate debate on September 4, 1789, was proposed to be added to the second amendment:

. . . that standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power.

The above phrase, like the militia clause, does not declare any specific command or stipulate any specific law. But the entire original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the national government for the reassurance of the individual states, and such statements of congressional duty -- although anomalous in the Bill of Rights -- are fully consistent with that purpose.

Now one might ask: why does this reinforcement of the duty of Congress to regulate the militia need to be made in the first place? Particularly when the power to regulate the militia had already been clearly conferred upon Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution? Well, I think one important clue is in another founding debate, found here. This is the transcript for a debate in the Virginia ratifying convention on June 14, 1788. It is rather lengthy, but probably the most relevant part is the first paragraph which is spoken by George Mason:

[Mr. Mason.] No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

I think the part in bold is the most important point here. It is my interpretation that the "express declaration" that Mason is referring to is the second amendment. The US Constitution declared that Congress would possess the power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the militia, but it was left uncertain to what extent the respective states still retained the power to do the same with their own militias. Mason also had the fear that the national government may neglect its stated powers of regulating the militia as per the Constitution, and ultimately abuse or utterly neglect the militia, to the detriment of the states. The second amendment as a whole seems to rectify this ambiguity and uncertainty, declaring that Congress shall not infringe upon the people's right to arm themselves for militia duty (i.e. "keep arms") and to perform militia duty (i.e. "bear arms"); and the militia clause in particular asserts the purpose of Congress to adequately regulate the militia, rather than allow it to fall into disuse or neglect to the detriment of the individual states.

The arms clause of the second amendment is primarily about the keeping of arms and bearing of arms. The 1789 House debate that I linked to contains a statement by Thomas Scott which actually employs both of these terms, and strongly suggests their militia-related meaning:

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

The way that Thomas Scott uses "keeping arms" suggests it means more than mere civilian firearm use, since the term is being used in a militia context: the diminution of rigor regarding the militia would purportedly violate the article of the Constitution which secures the right of keeping arms, and such a violation of this right would then necessitate the establishment of a standing army. "Keeping arms" in this context could only be referring to a function of the militia, as purely civilian gun possession would not make any sense in this context.

And furthermore, "bearing arms" can only have a militia-related meaning as it appears in the context above, as it would make no sense for anyone to adopt a pretext of religiosity in order to be excused from the mere freedom of carrying a gun for civilian purposes. And moreover, the phrase "bear arms" (or "bearing arms") is mentioned multiple times in the House debate, and it invariably and unambiguously possesses a military meaning.

Hence, regardless of arguments to the contrary that are frequently made by the pro-gun community, according to the very men who helped create the second amendment, the amendment is clearly about militia duty, and not about civilian gun use. What are your thoughts about this?

Does anyone know where this stands as far as if someone were to acquire a medical marijuana card (prescribed, from a licensed doctor) & Florida is now a Constitutional Carry State… ??? Can the medical card &/or gun possession be nullified by the other? Does anyone know where exactly you can find/read FL statute regarding this?

I don't live in America, but I have relatives that do, my nephew is in elementary and I'm fearful that one day, I'll get a call from my brother that he was a victim of another school shooting.

In one of Jim Carrey's movies, I believe it's "Yes Man," Jim's character innocently purchases a lot of fertilizer and gets on the local authorities radar because they suspect he might be building an explosive with all that fertilizer.

Now, why can't that apply to guns as well, especially assault style guns? That when someone purchases a lot of firearms and ammo, why can't that someone be on the radar of the local authorities? And what I mean by radar is that your social media accounts will be reviewed by the authorities, now, I'm not advocating for an assault style guns ban, that would be a violation of the 2nd amendment, so yes, you can buy as many guns as you like, but be prepared to be questioned by the local authorities if you do. Now, for me, the only people that would be against the local authorities snooping on them when they buy lots of guns and ammo, especially assault style ones, are those with something to hide, those with criminal records, if you are a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, then you'd welcome the authorities looking you up, because you have nothing to hide.

There's nothing in the 2nd amendment that says what I'm suggesting is a violation. Having and owning a gun is a big responsibility, in fact, you have God's power when you wield a gun, because God has the power to take someone's life, and you as a gun owner have that power too, and as Spider-Man says, "With great power comes great responsibility," and I feel like most Americans take that power for granted.

Gun laws and regulations in the United States have historically exhibited systemic biases that disproportionately affect minority Americans, constituting a form of institutional racism. Despite being ostensibly neutral, these laws have had adverse effects on minority communities, perpetuating socio-economic disparities and unequal treatment in access to firearms. One of the most glaring examples dates back to the Jim Crow era when laws were enacted explicitly to disarm African Americans.

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several Southern states passed Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that restricted African Americans from owning firearms. These laws aimed to reinforce racial segregation and suppress the rights of Black individuals. In particular, the 1870s and 1880s saw Mississippi and South Carolina passing laws banning the sale of handguns to African Americans. Such measures were part of a broader effort to disempower Black communities and maintain white supremacy.

Even in contemporary times, the enforcement and application of gun laws tend to disproportionately impact minority groups. Stricter background checks and licensing requirements may inadvertently hinder law-abiding citizens in minority communities from obtaining firearms for self-defense or sport. Moreover, aggressive policing in these areas often leads to heightened scrutiny and arrests for minor infractions related to firearms possession.

The legacy of discriminatory gun laws highlights a persistent pattern of inequality within the legal framework, undermining the Second Amendment rights of minority Americans. To address this issue, policymakers must acknowledge and rectify the historical and present-day racial biases embedded in gun regulations.

The 2 amendment is ABSOLUTE. Gun laws are racist. Those who want to take them away do so under the disguise of "saftey". In reality they are just happy you don't have them. Or use it as an excuse to now make you a criminal and send you into the system.

Let's join together to end the ATF. End the devide in America, let's all stand against something.

I have recently published an essay online which I have written; it is entitled: "The Language and Grammar of the Second Amendment". It is a 62-page essay that analyzes in detail the language of the second amendment. The amendment is a matter of great confusion for many people. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus among Americans as to what it actually means. The grammar is rather confusing, and some of the terms used in it are antiquated. My essay focuses primarily on the language itself, rather than delving so much into the historical background of the amendment. The essay uses a mixture of linguistic knowledge and historical context regarding the amendment's terminology in order to clarify what exactly the amendment means. Recent Supreme Court cases such as DC v Heller assert that the main purpose of the second amendment is self-defense, and that the amendment guarantees Americans the right to own guns. However, my thesis is that this is profoundly false. I argue in my essay that the second amendment is primarily about little more than what is explicitly stated in the first clause -- to ensure the right of Americans to militia service.

The essay can be accessed here.

I welcome any comments, questions, or criticisms you may have about the essay.

So I noticed my post was deleted by the moderator of the gun control community, not shocked. so that makes my link in my original thread here in this community; poo. BUT, I was able to copy and save it before hand. I wish I had a screen shot of the amount of views it had for proof that the community did read it, and that the comments were still available.

Free Speech online is only free if a moderator agrees with you.

This is the post unaltered.

It is long, and a little winded, I can admit. But I did try to show how if the gun control community wants to win more people over they have to start addressing the stuff they constantly avoid. At the end where I mentioned the US Code; it was only to show that a well-intentioned law is double-edged and does more to prevent a free people from protecting themselves from a corrupt government; I can see how someone would want to twist it to look like a conspiracy theory and it was unnecessary of me looking back to even mention it.

Take care, and if you read it, cheers to you.

I am curious as to how well gun control advocates understand the Second Amendment supporters overall.

I like to try and be as realistic as possible with hot topics such as this one. Because both sides I think deep down mean well, but when people on either side of this issue or any issue have an all-or-nothing approach and are unwilling to compromise ( which means no side gets exactly what they want ) then to me all that happens is thick minded people are constantly playing grabass with each other for no real purpose other than to be in an echo chamber and go at it with each other.

The positive side of gun control laws is that they are designed in theory to prevent criminals from being able to easily purchase guns, and those who are mentally unstable from owning or being able to purchase them as well, on top of lowering or preventing mass shootings.

What I have always wanted to know from gun control advocates, is this. Everyone is well aware of the Second Amendment, the main issue that arises for those wanting to protect the Second Amendment is the phrase " shall not be infringed upon ". That phrase right there was not put in by accident. The founding fathers were not fools, who only thought about the present that they were in, and did not consider what the future might look like. The truth about that phrase is easy to grasp for anyone who can read what the definition of the word infringe means. Same as simple words such as, stop, or go. They are words with direct meaning that do not put an asterisk on the word that reads " with possible exceptions ". So my question is, if gun control is so important to those who believe in it; why not bring up a vote to change that verbiage/phrase in the Second Amendment?

My next thought is do gun control advocates know about what gun control laws are already in place? Every time there is a mass shooting, there are demands and calls for more gun control, but the truth is, there are already a lot of gun control laws in place, that have been created after a mass shooting. There is the Castle Doctrine Law, the Duty to Retreat law, the famous or infamous Stand Your Ground law, laws limiting magazine sizes, laws preventing the use of bump stocks,
and laws against altering a rifle or pistol to do something it was not originally manufactured or intended to do, age limits to buying firearms; laws regarding hunting, and laws against " ghost guns ". So in the eyes of people who support the Second Amendment, and feel that every American does not need permission to conceal or open carry; because the founding fathers were not fools when they created that law, they look at the laws that gun control advocates have on the board already, and wonder why should there be more.

If you can not put yourself in someone else's shoes to see where they are coming from, how can you expect them to want to listen to you?

Another issue I constantly see is not being able to answer to the pro-Second Amendment community is this. How do gun control advocates, prove something they can not, which is this, if the Government decides to use the National Guard or the Army or Marines illegally against the populace or lawfully uses them against the populace but the military gets out of hand; and the police obviously can only do so much, what are the rest of us supposed to do to protect ourselves.? How are citizens to protect themselves during a riot when rioters are using firearms you do not want out in the public.? The answer, oh that will never happen by our government and our military would never do such a thing to their fellow countrymen, is not realistic, nor even close to being a good answer. So if you as a gun control advocate, can not give a factual guaranteed answer as to how or why such things will never happen now or 5 years from now, you have to realize this is why Second Amendment supporters never want to budge.

If you are honest, you have to realize that it could happen, and you have to make some kind of compromise that in the case of such an event, citizens can have readily accessible and equal firearms to defend themselves.

There is also the opinion of some gun control advocates that, if you take away all the guns ipsofacto problem is solved. The problem with that is, have you seen the size of America? Can you even begin to calculate how many good and bad people own a firearm,? Now come up with an acceptable way to disarm all the bad guys, and protect the good guys from the bad guys who won't turn over their firearms and are now using them on the good people. Also, consider that the local police have been defunded. Next, you have to make every possible way of creating a gun or bullet illegal and impossible to ever be done again. After that, you have to figure out how to prevent the illegal gun trade from getting firearms into the USA and being used on Americans; so let's say you manage to figure all of that out along with convincing Americans that their Government and Military will never turn against them, and manage to get the free world to follow suit. Now you have to convince Second Amendment supporters why countries that want to destroy America and terrorists, will never invade the USA, and if they do, there is no way they are going to use a pistol or rifle against the populace, and even if they did, there would be protection. This is for the all-or-nothing mindset of those gun control advocates who want the elimination of all guns; to answer. If the answer is to stop being paranoid or some passive-aggressive answer; then you have to realize you have not given any reason to Second Amendment supporters to change their minds.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to save lives, to want to prevent people who honestly should not have a firearm from owning one, the problem goes back to the phrase " shall not infringe upon" which means mentally ill or not, everyone until the Second Amendment is changed is technically and legally allowed to own a firearm of any kind, and to open carry or conceal carry even though laws are in place that do prevent that, that in turn means those laws like it or not, are a blatant violation of the Second Amendment; strictly because of that phrase, and even if part of the populace wants it; even if the Supreme Court says it is okay, but just because the Supreme Court says something is okay, doesn't mean they are infallible the Supreme Court is never the final word on a subject. We the People who created the government are in charge, we have the final say on whether we agree with the Supreme Court or not, and the Supreme Court does not.

The same way Freedom of Speech is used, and misused, and how we as a nation, as the voters, as the people who are in charge of the government not controlled by the government, allow that law to be interpreted when it best suits someone's agenda.

Also here is a fun fact, it is illegal to threaten the President of the USA, but what happens if the President becomes a dictator and convinces all three branches of government to follow him or her? Well then obviously it is okay to make threats! Well no, because it is still a law that says you can not. Well then we will just over throw the government if it gets too bad! Well sorry that is illegal as well because of

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating the overthrow of Government

We the People, have created a Code that has effectively given the US Government to legally become a dictatorship any time they want and there is nothing we the voters can do legally about it, because of this Code. It also means if a town or city in the USA becomes corrupt and the government is too lazy to do anything about it, no one can legally stop that city or town's leadership by force of any kind.

On top of that, we no longer have the means to take back our freedom because we have willingly given up our firearms and refused to compromise, we just gave up and said okay fine, let's get rid of all our firearms enough is enough. Or we just gave up certain firearms, which now only our military has, that has in turn given them the edge over us, and now the government controls the military.

With all the talk about banning "assault rifles" would now be a good time to purchase my AR or can I wait a fee months to save up?

Important definitions: Gun nuts love to twist arguments about gun safety into discussions on what terms are and what they mean and then when you use a term in the wrong way they completely dismiss your arguments. The best thing we can do to have reasonable discussions on gun violence and the regulations proposed is to sit down and define a set of definitions. These can be confusing because there can be military definitions, civilian definitions, and legal definitions.

Terms:

1. Automatic: An automatic firearm or fully automatic firearm (to avoid confusion with semi-automatic firearms) is an autoloading firearm that continuously chambers and fires rounds when the trigger mechanism is actuated. TL;DR: Hold-down trigger and the gun keeps firing until the ammunition runs out
2. Semi-automatic: A semi-automatic weapon is any weapon where the shooter pulls the trigger, one bullet is fired and a new bullet is automatically loaded. TL;DR: One trigger pull, one bullet comes out, pull the trigger again and another bullet will come out. Here it can be a little tricky because not all firearms use what we recognize as a “trigger”. The original gatling guns required a crank instead of a trigger. So, the “trigger” was rotating the crank a few degrees (let’s say it’s 5°). So, a gatling gun operated with a hand crank isn’t an automatic weapon. It’s a semi-auto with a trigger pull requiring the user to turn the crank 5°.
3. Reset action: There isn’t a blanket term for a gun that requires extra actions to fire (think bolt-action, lever action, pump action, SAO pistol,) so I decided to invent one. If you have a better one, then go for it. I’ll support you. The idea is that a gun that requires more than a trigger pull to fire a second shot. This isn’t a new thing. Pump-action shotguns are very popular. Bolt-action guns were produced by the millions in various wars in the late 19th early/mid 20th century. They’re super popular among hunters who only need one shot and target shooters who get all the time in the world to line up their shot. I couldn’t find a word that refers to all of these types of guns, so I made one up. Make a better one up. Please.

##Restrictions (The part that gun guys will hate)

• You can only own guns at home that are reset action firearms.

• Any other type of firearm can now be owned NFA be damned

• Before you get all Incensed about your 1st Amendment rights being infringed remember: “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean no restrictions can be placed on them. And numerous court cases have affirmed this (remember the Assault Weapons Ban?)

• This is a negotiation so there will be give and take and I intend to give you a lot of stuff that I think you would like (I know I would really like it)

• To understand my motivation behind my stupid plan I think people should be able to own guns for basic self defense. I believe people should be able to own all sorts of crazy guns for competitions and whatnot. I just don’t want the crazy guns to be easily available to anyone and everyone any time they have a bad day. I think we can have both if we both compromise and give up a little.

• Possessing semi-auto, fully-auto, (some) AOW at home would be illegal

• Newly illegal weapons to possess at home wouldn’t be confiscated, we would instead register gun ranges and gun shops and there will probably be an entirely new business sectors that would safely and securely hold on to them. To make this document easier to read I’m going to call places that offer these services tactical storage or tacstore for short.

• Tacstores will have to comply with a number of laws and regulations so they don’t get robbed or work as a front to sell firearms illegally.

• We will have to institute a system whereby a person can check-out a firearm to transfer it to another registered tacstore (which can, and usually will be, a range)

  • USPS could offer this service
  • Private companies could offer this service
  • A system where a private citizen checks out their gun transfers it themselves is also a possibility

• Most people don’t drive around the country shooting at every range they can find so having to go through the process to transfer a gun to a range to shoot isn’t that onerous.

• In fact, most people just shoot at a single range and so they would just pay to store it there and then come and shoot it there.

• Obviously storing a gun and having it transferred is going to cost money, but it’s nothing compared to the lives it will save, and again, there are going to be a bunch of upsides

• Guns would have to be registered just like other dangerous objects like cars, planes, and lemonade stands

• The first time you buy a gun you would go through a rigorous background check similar to the ones they give to people applying for concealed carry permits. You would also have to demonstrate safe operation of a firearm including firing it (just like you have to drive a car to get a driver's license)

• Unless there is an incident that requires it, this background check would only happen once

• On completion of the background check and test you will be issued a license to own and operate firearms. A more restrictive youth license wouldn’t be off the table. And not all licenses would allow all types of firearms to be used (I think)

• When you buy a gun you don’t need to go through the background check, you just show them your license

• There will need to be incidents and crimes that revoke your license

##Massively Expanded Liberties in Owning Firearms In firearm enthusiast communities the initialism NFA is like the worst thing you could ever say unless it is proceeded by words “Fuck the”. When I said this is a negotiation and so each side would have to give a little, but in return get something they want, I’m saying what you get if you support this proposal is the gutting, flaying, and drawing and quartering of most of the NFA.

If you support these new regulations to treat firearms like other extremely dangerous machines we will give you everything you want, just not at your house.

• Short-Barreled Rifles? The designation will be a thing of the past. It was stupid anyways.
• Short-Barreled Shotguns? Also gone. The designation has no practical purpose.
• Machine guns? This designation is actually something that is important, but since you won’t have them at your home there’s no risk of you grabbing your Sterling L2A3 and murdering 17 schoolchildren.
• There will be no restriction on owning a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986
• Silencers/Suppressors even countries with extremely strict gun laws don’t care about suppressors. Their magical ability is only in movies. In the UK if you want a suppressor you just check a box. Since this isn’t a gun you can own one at home
• AOW Some will be unblocked, but some I think should be kept restricted
  • Concealable Firearms with a Smooth Bore, think Serbu Shorty, it’s just a small shotgun. This will be legal all around because it will be a reset action gun.
  • Concealable Firearms with Rifled Barrels, akin to the Concealable Firearms with a Smooth Bore and SBSs these designations should be eradicated
  • Disguised Firearms, I think this designation has merit, but I’m willing to talk about it. It seems the only thing these are good for are assassinations
  • Smooth-Bore Pistols, not sure why these are a problem. A smooth bore pistol is just a worse pistol.
  • Certain Combination Guns: A gun with two barrels that shoot different ammo is a gimmick and not any more lethal than anything else. There’s no reason to have to have special restrictions on these.
• Tax stamps: since none of these designations and restrictions will exist anymore you won’t have to pay for or wait for a tax stamp. Your license is basically your tax stamp and says you’re good to go so you’re good to go. Your license, like a driver’s license, would indicate what you are allowed to/are capable of operating.

##Result You can’t have a semi-automatic firearm at home. You can own one, you just can’t have it at home. You can have guns that people have been using for hundreds of years to defend themselves without feeling inadequate. If your mate had a Remington 870 as his home defense weapon would you think he’s stupid because he can’t penetrate 0.135 inches of steel plate at 500 yd 30 times in 25 seconds? A pump action shotgun, lever-gat, or SAO pistol, is plenty of home protection unless you’re a mob boss. And that’s the only downside.

The upside is you can own everything and anything you ever wanted, some at home, but most not at home. MP5s are iconic. Wouldn’t it be cool to own one? Since supply is limited since 1986 there aren’t many for sale. You’re looking to have to pay something like $60,000 - $70,000 for one, plus the tax stamp (and I’m assuming you would pass any anal-probing background check the feds would do). With this framework, as long you qualify for a license, you just go to a gun store and say “hey I want to buy that MP5 there on that rack”. The guy hands it to you and you say, “oh and I want a suppressor for it, can you help me pick out a good one for it?”. Then when you’re done tell them the range that you like to go shoot at and so they give you some paperwork to fill out and you’ll probably have to pay a fee to transfer it and then you’re done.

Next Saturday you go to your range, show them your license, they get your gun out and give it to you and you get to shoot a machine gun without having to go to one of those shady gun ranges or pay $70,000 for a priceless antiquity that you’re afraid to shoot because it might break. Think the Kriss Vector is cool? it’s a free country buy it and shoot it to your heart's content. Wanna cosplay as ‘20’s bank robbers? Buy a replica full-auto Tommygun complete with drum magazine, have your friend get a cut down BAR and go around cosplaying at a Cowboy action shooting even. Have fun. It's a free country and you're allowed to do it if we adopt this framework. It’s an America that lets you do crazy stuff other countries would blanche at while still not having the weekly mass shootings.

Oh and you get to shoot all of those cool guns that have come out since 1986. Wouldn’t it be cool to shoot that cool new Army M5 or M250 on full auto. The way things are now you’ll never be able to do it.

##Shooting Sports NO gun sports are negatively affected in any way by this framework. Now that more guns are available to shoot at ranges shooting sports won’t go away. In fact, they’ll likely expand. I’m imagining 4-Gun competitions: pistol, carbine, submachine gun, shotgun. Imagine stylized 3/4-Gun competitions where the weapons must come from a certain era or war or country. You can own any gun you want (if you aren’t a violent criminal).

Suppressors

They don’t lower the sound level that much, but every bit helps. At the range it makes it easier to talk and give directions and thus be safer. In home defense it helps you not go deaf. Suppressors should just be legal period.

Youtubers Wow, imagine being able to easily get your hands on any production gun in existence and test the shit out of it and then, if you really like it, buy it. Youtubers would have a field day year

Conclusion This framework preserves everything we have today. I think this is the deal of the century. You give up being able to own semi-auto weapons at home and in exchange you can have literally any gun you want and put a suppressor on it. You give up so little and get so much in return.

You can buy, own, and shoot nearly any gun in existence as long as you’re not a criminal.