I read your gun law proposal, and while most of it seems solid, I have some questions about the lack of reference to fully automatic weapons. What I would propose is keeping the NFA and removing everything aside from destructive devices and machineguns from it and reopening the machinegun registry. I would love to own some full giggle, but the idea of being able to get an FN Mag with just an NCIS check disturbs me.
If you notice, there’s a small bit of leeway there.
Honestly, I personally don’t think full-auto guns should be regulated beyond normal, for a variety of reasons, mostly because if someone wants a full-auto gun, they can modify many semi-auto guns at home and get one that way, or just make a Sten.
I also think making NICS checks more available and cheap will significantly cut down on the ability of criminals to access these (and other guns), especially with the responsibility of the crime possibly falling on the head of the seller. Nobody but a fool would take that liability.
The definition of firearm specifically excludes explosives, as they do not propel a projectile in a controlled, directable manner. They are at best “directional.”
Though, this definition of firearm still technically includes many anti-tank missiles (dependent on method of delivery), but it specifically excludes area of effect weapons such as antipersonnel grenades, HE grenades, claymores, and other bombs or explosives.
I intend to work out some legislature regulating explosives as well; the plan is to allow hobbyist organizations to manage local/state use of them similar to how the FCC uses HAM radio to manage local use of radio. This would allow someone to receive a sort of “Explosives Tech” license to enable them to purchase/use explosives for industrial/construction/hollywood/personal purposes.
I’m not very solid on how explosives are currently regulated, so I won’t move on making proposals for it until I am more aware of the situation as-is.
“Talking to oneself is a recognized means to learn, in fact, self-speak may be the seed concept behind human consciousness. Private conversation that we hold with ourselves might represent the preeminent means to provoke the speaker into thinking (a form of cognitive auto-stimulation), modify behavior, and perhaps even amend the functional architecture of the plastic human brain. Writing out our private talks with oneself enables a person to “see” what they think, a process that invites reflection, ongoing thoughtful discourse with the self, and refinement of our thinking patterns and beliefs. Internal sotto voice conversations with our private-self provide several advantages, but most people find it difficult to maintain self-speak for an extended period. Internal dialogue must compete with external distractions. Writing allows a person to resume a personal dialogue where they left off before interrupted by outside stimuli. A written disquisition also provides a permanent record that a person can examine, amend, supplement, update, or reject.”