That would indeed be another form, here is the ATF list of various forms you may be interested in. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/applications-eforms If you pursue the full auto life, I suggest you keep everything on the up and up. People have gone to prison for a mistake. Careful you be. E.T.A. Or you could just go to a machine gun shoot event like Big Sandy and shoot other people's machine guns. And tanks. And artillery.
Rifles were state of the art technology when the 2A was written. Muskets were outdated technology. Serious shooters were transitioning from smooth bore (muskets) to rifled barrels like the Kentucky Long Rifle, etc. One reason we won the Revolutionary War. Just so you know, the bottom weapon in your picture from your pay wall link is a carbine, not a rifle by today’s standards. Did you have some point besides offering an inaccurate irrelevant pay walled link?
*L* Rifled barrel or no, the guns at the time were not nearly as dangerous as a modern carbine. I don't know why you would feel a need to point out the difference between a rifle and a carbine since gun nuts treat them all the same where their notions of Second Amendment rights are concerned. Personally, I'd be fine with limiting those rights to guns such as bolt-action rifles and single-action handguns. They're still more deadly than a rifle in 1791, but not so much so that they could be used instead of a semi-auto rifle or handgun to cause comparable mass casualties.
Why do you think this matters? “The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). " Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016. Why do you think that the government has the authority to restrict classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes?
It's almost as if he thinks that some of the most brilliant well rounded men that ever walked the face of the Earth had no idea that technology would advance...
James Belton offered his repeating flintlock to the Continental Congress in 1777, who order 100 of them but then got buyer's remorse. How many of the Founders served in the Continental Congress?
What do you mean by “dangerous”? Have you ever compared the evolution of firearms to the decreasing prevalence of real mass violence? The first common usage of firearms in the 1500’s. The development of the flintlock (musket and rifle) and these two becoming primary arms of the common soldier in the 18th century. Since the adoption of assault rifles as the primary weapon we have essentially flatlined for world power conflict. When we look at total violent death we see something similar. So I ask again, what exactly makes advances in firearm technology “dangerous”? The associated reduction in violent death? Or some emotional reaction you have to media portrayal of firearms? Personally I like modern weapons and the drastic reduction in violence that has accompanied their development.
Untrue. Girardoni Air Rifle. 30 round magazine. Essentially a bolt action. As deadly as any modern firearm. Created in 1779. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
I take it you would also be for limiting the 1st because the internet allows the speedy dissemination of what the left calls dangerous speech.
That's a given considering most of the left supports banning speech of which they disagree on social media platforms.
You cannot, you don't have the right to own them, however we can because we do have the right to own them. So now get over it.
In addition, you may enjoy the FPS Russia videos, that guy is really an American, in America, using a fake Russian accent, and has some of the most obtuse weaponry on the planet. Here he goes to Whitecastle, in his tank. Here is his drone with a machine gun attached. Plus oh so much more. I may have to rewatch some of these myself.
I find it disconcerting that you are here on team "restrict gun ownership", yet within your very signature lies the words "Personal freedoms should not be political". I agree, they should not. But I also think that statement covers the individual right to own guns, frankly regardless of the status of the 2A. Even if that were non-existent, I maintain that right exists regardless. And if you truly believed your own statement, you should, too.
Um....what specifically is your evidence that I'm on team "restrict gun ownership"? Said another way....you couldn't be more wrong. I am in no way for restricting ANY gun ownership. But again, please provide the evidence that backs up your claim. I'll wait.