Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
50. I appreciate that you're not dancing around the subject
Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:35 PM
Feb 2013

Also for a civil conversation. Thank you.


This may in time happen; however I do not think it will save any lives. Not overall, not in a statistical sense. And I don't think we can lower the firing rate of guns low enough to prevent a madman from committing mass slaughter; our gun technology would have to be knocked back over a hundred and fifty years.

FWIW, I posted this in another thread about gun control. Somebody asked me where we should start; this was my answer.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.

I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.

I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...

2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.

I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.

This should cut down on trafficking.

3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.

4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.

5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2301318


The first half is a general rant about politicians and stuff; the part I posted is in the bottom half. I think I got the federal minimum wage wrong, though... I think it's $7.05, so the maximum fee would be $21.15.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Pretty miniscule group to be bothered by, seems to me.. pipoman Feb 2013 #1
Some of us would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then have guns confiscated LonePirate Feb 2013 #2
Their "anti-government" weapons would be no match for this: Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #3
not worried Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #5
Are you hoping for such an event to test your IED skills? Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #7
nope Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #33
So... what do you mean? Are you "not worried" because you think the Gubmint is coming for you? Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #37
I think I might be unclear Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #44
Apparently, there's paranoia somewhere... Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #47
OK I will play your game Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #49
Why am I not surprised? nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #14
That is theKed Feb 2013 #22
Why Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #34
But your first comment was that you were not worried if the govt came with drones, morningfog Feb 2013 #59
See, Duckhunter, that's why I think gun cultists are a problem. They are willing to kill innocent Hoyt Feb 2013 #51
Or this. nick of time Feb 2013 #8
Spooky and the Drone. This is crying out for a sitcom... Cooley Hurd Feb 2013 #10
LOL. nick of time Feb 2013 #11
"I remember in Vietnam we..." - Baloney. You're no more a Vietnam Vet than my kitty cat is. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author nick of time Feb 2013 #62
And what will that aircraft bomb? krispos42 Feb 2013 #12
Yes they will like during the civil war. nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #16
It depends on how it plays out. krispos42 Feb 2013 #19
And you know this how? nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #21
That's my point krispos42 Feb 2013 #25
And my point is that both sides will destroy infrastructure nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #43
The poster often lives in a "Red Dawn"-type fantasy world: this is not the first time we've seen apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #60
And related to that: who will fly those bombers? NickB79 Feb 2013 #24
They might well decide to join the rebels. krispos42 Feb 2013 #26
This subthread is proving the opposite point. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #41
Only idiots think that krispos42 Feb 2013 #4
Oh gee golly...like 1934. Oh the horror! nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #13
The 1934 Act was nothing like I described krispos42 Feb 2013 #17
Unstated, your AR will require a buyer to have nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #20
That is Feinstein's proposal, which is not what I was directly discussing. krispos42 Feb 2013 #23
You mentioned a pump-action AK-47 NickB79 Feb 2013 #27
I counted 12 rounds. Total clip length was 13 seconds krispos42 Feb 2013 #30
Why I told my rep to forget looks and go for firing mechanism. nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #46
I appreciate that you're not dancing around the subject krispos42 Feb 2013 #50
Alas it can be done, dropping the ROF. nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #53
Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #6
There is a huge difference between wanting guns gone and it becoming reality... cynatnite Feb 2013 #9
bans are perfectly reasonable Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #15
Actually, its looking like the AWB might not even get out of the Senate. aikoaiko Feb 2013 #18
i'm speaking more generally of a 'horizon' Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #35
If you're talking about Feinstein's AWB nick of time Feb 2013 #28
target shooting Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #38
for an assault weapon? no they most certainly are not. hobbies do not outweigh the risks. Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #42
it is the exact Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #48
yeah semi-autos should definitely be banned as well. Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #61
I don't think the government is going to confiscate Jenoch Feb 2013 #29
Probably not. nick of time Feb 2013 #31
There are several gun control bills Jenoch Feb 2013 #54
It's a possibility nick of time Feb 2013 #55
I too don't think there will be Jenoch Feb 2013 #56
It might be more like the "buy back" they did in Australia treestar Feb 2013 #32
We have to hand it to the Aussies, they bit the bullet and enacted real/effective gun restrictions. Hoyt Feb 2013 #52
I wish the government did but not happening in my lifetime libtodeath Feb 2013 #36
Most of them don't really believe it. Mariana Feb 2013 #39
I think you're confusing two phenomena. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #40
More importantly quaker bill Feb 2013 #45
They're nuts. Plain and simple.(In fact, some are worse!) AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»About those who think the...»Reply #50