For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.
Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.
Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.[/quote]
[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?), or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.
Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well.
What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people?
You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.
And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public. I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming
) are something that need effective and diligent oversight. Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.[/quote]
Well you deserve credit for having hit several of the key ideas, buzzwords, and phrases some of us have come to know and not love.
- -Mandatory insurance, which would be ripe for abuse.
-Placing gun clubs, already often fighting for their existence thanks to nimbys, more in the line of fire by putting the burden of policing individuals on them. It's not hard to tell how that would end.
-Support for the government keeping secret lists such as the terrorism watch list, something many on the left were supposedly against until 12/2/2015.
-A system of rules based on placing blame with a gun or type of gun--particularly its appearance--using the concept of "military orientation" or "military class." This didn't make sense in 1994 and doesn't now, but gun prohibitionists are still pushing it.
-Hiding behind "war" to push gun restrictions.
-The "you don't need" argument--someone's arbitrary idea of what others can't have based on what he/she thinks others don't need. No thanks.
-Suggesting people should't be armed to <whatever extent> because a) government is benevolent and b) government can kill the non-compliant easily anyway. The average gun owner, regardless of what he/she posts on Arfcom, is not going to war with the government, and if government is so omni-capable, then they don't need to be worried about people with ARs anyway.
There is. It is called "root cause mitigation" by those who have already posted about it more times than I care to remember in other threads, despite your assumption a couple of those those same people are 2A absolutists for not going into detail about it here. 
