ya, my point is, look how effective swatting has been, calling up and claiming a situation and the cavalry arrives pumped up and ready. Now imagine if being swatted also potentially meant you were ineligible for protections of second amendment, because you became 'known' to the fbi.
Of course, over time you will probably be able to prove you are not what the caller said you were, but isnt that the point in the first place, that you shouldnt have to prove you are innocent of what they said?
Very slippery slope that will be abused if we decide differently, if we jump on people with full force of government because of their speech. And saying ' I want to be a _________________' is speech and not a directly communicated threat. You pretty much shred ever part of the constitution if we start treating neighbor complaints as actual government sanctions.
I think you have a lot more constitutional protection to argue what 'well-regulated militia' means and why is 'well-regulated' and 'can not be infringed' in the same sentence. They are pretty obviously diametrically opposed, and there has to be a reason for that,.