= new reply since forum marked as read
..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
I don't agree with restricting private individuals the same way Marines are restricted by the corp. The OP didn't add much to the video in the way of his preferences for specific changes, leaving any interpretation up to the reader.
The 2013 shooting at NAVSEA IMO highlights the difficulty in viewing assault and murder as having simple solutions.
I advocate universal background checks and I have other specific opinions. 
But IMO they should NOT have access to military assault rifles. The OP apparently was responding to someone who used the Marines as an argument against gun control, so there was some specificity to the point he was making.
2A as written is an anachronism. I'd like to see a new Amendment which guarantees the right of private ownership, while being well regulated:
Semiautomatics and large clips are banned.
Universal background checks including private sales. ANY transfer of ownership requires a background check and change in registration for the firearm. Must be reported if lost or stolen; otherwise, registered owner is complicit in any crime committed with that weapon.
Obtaing a license to own a firearm requires passing a test pertaing to handling & storing firearms, and the relevant laws .
I'm on the fence regarding the degree of restriction for concealed carry. I'm against open carry, which is more if a political statement than a legitimate need.
I'm not about to argue semantics but this one point is a bit critical...
re: "...they should NOT have access to military assault rifles." They don't in general. The AR-15 is a civilian semi-auto version of the M-16. The M-16 is a military grade weapon with a top rate of fire of 700-900 rounds per minute. An AR-15 has a stated rate of fire of 45-60 rounds per minute.
Unfortunately the number of bullets required to kill is one.
There are a variety of opinions about the 2A. Why would you say it's an anachronism?
Why ban semi-autos? I'd guess close to half guns now privately owned are semi-auto. (that's maybe 150 million or more)
UBCs... I think we agree there. Registration is another matter. Just because a gun is registered doesn't mean it can't kill. Registration won't stop the insane mass shooter types.
A license to own? I'm thinking once you pass the BGC you're licensed. I do however prefer a license to carry if you plan to carry in public. I'm not a fan of what is called Constitutional Carry. I don't like open carry within town limits. IMO a lot of the OC characters are just a different version of the class clown type attention whores. Camping in the woods you can OC all you want.
Thanks for the thoughts. 
...so mutual respect is really a good thing. 
I do have a different view of the 2A but that can wait.
I did see that you said semi-autos at some point but I didn't take the hint that those were being equated. I don't really have a problem with semi-auto. For one thing, if you have bought a gun for self-defense, I figure you're most likely to be assaulted by someone with at least a revolver and more likely another semi-auto. With over 100 million semi-autos in the US, I also think that genie is already out of the bottle. I can't see some gang doing a drive-by with bolt action rifles. I don't own a gun now and haven't for years. IMO it's an expensive activity and me being kind of poor and rather cheap, it's not for me.
You have to explain the registration thing because I don't see how that does anything.
Good night for now. The wife and I are going to relax and watch news soon to see who shot who. 
I'll check in tomorrow. Have a peaceful holiday.
From the FOPA of 1986:
My understanding is that this is a general provision that has specific exceptions like, AFAIK, some states register the guns that residents with concealed carry permits plan to actually carry.
Aside from all this a majority of owners and pro-RKBA folks are adamantly opposed to general registration.
As I said before probably 150 million of the guns in the US today are semi-auto. I would ballpark fair market values between $40-50 billion. That amount of money would pale in comparison to the budget involved in the collection and processing of guns recovered and the subsequent cost of prosecuting the non-compliant folks. I'd guess the cost would approach $1 trillion.
Semi-auto rifles were first invented in 1779. The idea that the Founders, some of the most intelligent, experienced and well informed people of the day, never considered semi-auto rifles when writing the 2A, is impossible to believe.
For 230+ years the 2A has stood unchanged and is accepted as a protection against government denying an individual right to keep and bear arms. State and federal courts and legislatures have deemed lawful several types of semi-auto rifles and handguns.
An amendment requires a proposal advanced by either 33 states or 357 Congresspersons and the acceptance of 401 Congresspersons or 38 states. IMO the attempt isn't worth the fallout.
I don't think there will ever be a case where civilians will work to overthrow throw the federal government. I don't see a scenario such as the events of 4 May 1970 will ever be repeated on a national or even regional scale. I believe these things by virtue of the innate character of the typical servicemen and women I know. Unlike other times in history and other areas of the world, these folks do not view themselves as separate from other citizens and of some higher class. IMO the 2A is one of the things that helps maintain that equality.
I prefer to consider measures that could be sufficiently supported as to be passed into law. Experience from the campaign against drunk driving points to the education and cooperation of the drinking public. It didn't matter if those drinking where alcoholics or just friends enjoying a night out. Programs like designated drivers and taking a taxi or Uber when drinking have helped more than all of the laws and fines of the past.
Peace to you and yours
I was hoping for some specific helpful ideas. IMO making to overall US into Camp Lejeune doesn't work.
YMMV
Yeah, maybe in some states they can't sell "assault weapons" (by whatever definition the state uses) but they definitely boost gun sales.
I did an entire thread on it a few months ago: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172211325
But the crux of it is, gun owners know that the idea of "assault weapons" is arbitrary and emotional and based on things like... a protruding pistol grip or a buttstock that adjusts without tools. This is because, shockingly, gun owners knows about guns pretty intimately and non-gun-owners don't.
Once you can ban "assault weapons" you can expand the definition to cover most anything.
To be brutally honest, if I was a gun maker that sold guns in America, I would secretly funnel a few hundred thousand a year to American anti-gun groups. I mean, look at the graph! Mere advertising can't triple the market for guns like fears of government bans does!
