A Realistic Gun Policy Proposal

[Kang Colby]

Hi Folks,

As an NRA member and long time supporter of gun rights, I'd like to pitch a policy proposal that might have a chance of passing.

We increase funding for state NICS submissions and strengthen due process protections for social security recipients, veterans, and the mentally ill. Additionally, we transfer suppressors from the National Firearms Act and treat them like regular guns.

Additional funding for NICS audits, database improvements, and feasibility studies for making the service available securely to non-FFLs in some way for future use.

The hardliners on both sides won't like it, but we might be able to get bipartisan support.

Thoughts?

[RobertEarl]

1. One Gun - One Bullet

That's the start.

That will mean no more mass slaughters from legal gun owners once all the illegal weapons are modified or melted out of existence.

[Kang Colby]

2. Yeah, right. n/t

[Hoyt]

3. +1. Much better idea. Gunners can still stroke their weapons, hunt, target shoot, etc.

All the things they say are so important to them, but no more mass shootings, etc.

Excellent.

[Kang Colby]

7. LOL...

I admit that's pretty funny. Over the top sure, but funny nonetheless.

[baldguy]

9. Those are the guns the 2nd Amendment was written for.

Those are the only guns it should apply to.

[pipoman]

14. A standard for one is the standard for the rest...

[Duckhunter935]

22. Lol

Funny how selective some are

[baldguy]

33. We've tried it your way. It's been a spectacular, murderous, bloody failure.

Defamation & libel - which the 1st Amendment allow to be restricted - don't leave dead bodies in their wake.

[pipoman]

37. It's not my way, it's our way....like it or not

And murdee is illegal...you are suggesting the equivalent of sewing everyone's mouth closed so they can't defame or libel anyone.

[baldguy]

42. What I'm suggesting is that rights are not absolute.

And that they are limited when the harm other people. Responsible practitioners of those rights will act to limit themselves to prevent harm. And since firearms owners want no limits on their rights - AND ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AGAINST LIMITS - firearms harm more people than they help.

[pipoman]

43. Yeah, and you know that there is a complete volume of "limits" already in place

Any more will require an amendment or 30 years of SCOTUS reversals....equally likely would be the third option....Jesus coming back and waiving his magic wand disappearing all the gunz...

[Duckhunter935]

47. No limits, lol

I guess the thousands of local, state and federal laws and regulations do not exist, right?

[TipTok]

49. All of this 'greater good' nonsense is emotional fluff...

The responsible gun owners you speak of have no need to limit themselves because they are... Wait for it... Responsible..

[baldguy]

52. Right, they're so responsible that America has 38,000 gun deaths each year.

You and I have a different definition of "responsible".

[TipTok]

54. 10s of millions of gun owners...

... And most of the deaths you listed occur through suicide or in high crime areas.

Actual incidents like this are still extremely rare and are no cause to curtail the rights of the vast majority who have done nothing wrong.

[Waldorf]

57. Last I heard 33k was the number being used. And of course, 2/3rds of those are suicides.

[baldguy]

60. Like that makes a difference. Just proves that gun owners are not, in fact, responsible.

You show no concern, no compassion, no empathy for the human beings whose lives are utterly destroyed by guns.

We've tried it your way. It's been a spectacular, bloody failure.

[Kang Colby]

56. What do you think about the proposal in the OP? n/t

[Travis_0004]

10. And this is why no progress gets made.

[Duckhunter935]

12. So true, how long before the sexual insults?

[Travis_0004]

16. Very soon

[RobertEarl]

18. Becuse some reject reason

Oh, gun ranges could be allowed to have such arms. And the cops. But no one else would have the chance to have a weapon of mass slaughter and we can all feel a little safer,

[Travis_0004]

28. My gun range is unattended, on 500 acres in the middle of nowhere

I love the ideas to store them at the range. Im sure they would be stolen the first night.

Ive gone to the range when Im the only person there. As if a crimal couldnt just take the gun with him. Im sure when inventory is done at month end, he will have some explaining to do.

[oneshooter]

63. I already keep mine locked up at the range house.

I have a 10 point 400 yard range in my back yard. There is also a 10 point 50 yard pistol range.

[cleanhippie]

19. Id love to see the day you make a coherent and rational argument.

[RobertEarl]

24. Would require you were able to read, no?

One Bullet at a time, per gun, would save innocent lives.

[cleanhippie]

26. Oh, I can read. I can read the incoherent, nonsensical drivel, as well as the childish insults.

[RobertEarl]

27. You can read your own posts?

That's a start. And you describe yourself and your drivel well. You're on a roll.

[cleanhippie]

62. QED

[Waldorf]

53. You are correct, by that time they will only be in museums. We will have phasers instead.

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Who will make sure all guns smuggled across our open borders...

Are all single shot weapons?

Because open borders is in effect, what we have.

[pipoman]

4. IBTL

There will be no Federal requirement for BG checks on intrastate sales of used guns. It can't happen. There will be no "deal" for it because the feds don't have jurisdiction.

[Duckhunter935]

6. Probably so

To bad only one side is allowed to post about guns in GD .

[pipoman]

8. He's toast

[pintobean]

30. "Do not think about arguing"

posted by a host. The fix is in.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7913559

[Duckhunter935]

34. Yep, an angry one too

[Kang Colby]

40. Maybe so...Duckhunter.

I was hoping to attract some real input from the opposing side on this one.

[Duckhunter935]

41. At least you tried

I give you credit for that

[Kang Colby]

44. If it weren't for the good folks in GC&RKBA...I wouldn't bother.

[Duckhunter935]

50. A great group

[Kang Colby]

55. The best I ever did see.

[Kang Colby]

15. It wouldn't be mandatory.

The proposal would only be for a feasibility study.

[pipoman]

31. I agree, and there should be immunity from civil or criminal

If a gun sold through the system is later used in a crime, increased liability and culpability for sales not sold through the system. Most sales would go through the system...especially between strangers..

[Kang Colby]

36. Concur.

In fact, I was going to get into safe harbor provisions or civil immunity but I didn't want to open a can of worms.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Like it

I think NICS should be opened up or transactions go through the police no cost using the system.

[Kang Colby]

11. I wouldn't mind having a buyer

generate a cryptographic token from NICS that's good for 72 hours and could be validated by a seller using the system.

[Hoyt]

13. Just sell through an FFL, if you really care about ensuring your guns don't go to

felons. Doubt many gunners care.

[Duckhunter935]

17. Most all of the spree killers did just that

I can't off hand think of one that did not go through a background check.

[RobertEarl]

21. Yep they were all legal

Shows the laws are not good enough.

Were it up to the slaughtered, the NRA would be history.

[Kang Colby]

20. I would rather give people a self serve option.

[Hoyt]

29. Problem is, you don't have the accountability of an FFL, record keeping system, and any dick could

check to see if someone has a questionable background whether related to a gun sale or not (wouldn't know what they did, of course ). Plus, I think those who profit from lethal weapons should bear all costs, including background checks. Finally, if you screw up, you should be an accessory to murder, robbery, whatever, even if it was a straw purchaser.

No sympathy for those involved in gun trade.

[Kang Colby]

38. Hoyt, all of what you said is basically an opinion.

While I value your input....I don't see your opinions making it out of a legislative committee. Ya dig? What do you think could actually pass in 2016?

[Hoyt]

58. Don't care about 2016, there's always next year. In the meantime, let's expose gunners for what

what they are.

[Kang Colby]

59. So rather than improve the system, you want to make gun owners look bad?

I thought this was an issue you cared about.

[linuxman]

23. I'd be down with that.

Along with aggressive prosecution of people who leave an unsecured gun which is then used by a child.

[Kang Colby]

25. No issue with that. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

35. Agreed

[Shemp Howard]

32. My solution. Sensible, I think.

Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, both rifles and handguns. All such guns that are now in private hands should be turned in to the government. But do not cheat people who own those firearms now. The government should buy those guns at premium prices. Pay top dollar.

But that alone won't do! 2A advocates would argue that such an action would just be the first step towards total gun confiscation. And they would have a point!

So we would also need a Constitutional amendment, one that would explicitly recognize a citizen's right to own revolvers, breech-loading long guns, and bolt-action rifles.

[Kang Colby]

39. That will likely never become federal legislation.

So no, that's not sensible. Some may consider your idea the ideal approach, but it is woefully unrealistic.

[Shemp Howard]

46. A ban not linked to any guarantee of rights, that would be unrealistic. (nt)

[Kang Colby]

51. In all due respect, I politely disagree.

So called universal background checks couldn't pass a Senate controlled by Democrats. But you want to ban around 50% of all new guns sold and call for a Constitutional convention? Good luck.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

45. Harsher penalties and stricter enforcement of 'straw purchases'

Same goes for a convicted violent felon in possession of a firearm (release the petty drug offenders and make room
for the real criminals).

Utilize and enforce RICO laws for known gang members and activity.

This one is tricky, and would have to be implemented cautiously: Submission of mental health records to the NIC's database.

[Kang Colby]

48. I agree with most of that.

Real due process protections would make the mental health piece easier to accommodate, but under no circumstances should mental health records shy of legitimate adjudications make their way into NICS.