
Should we allow both since there is a legitimate argument that they had intent of that? Or should we interpret the law in its plain text, and set aside whatever intents were involved that did not make it into the text? The courts have gone back and forth on this since the founding, but the intent argument tends to be popular because it allows more judicial discretion, and the justices are the ones deciding whether or not they have it.
I'm aware it's legally not considered a firearm, but my definition of firearm differs from the government's definition since the government's is wholly inaccurate, specifically exempting entire classes of firearms like muzzle loaders, but I'm curious where your definition of machine gun differs from the governments because I don't really see any inaccuracy with it.