HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I have an idea on how to ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:56 PM

I have an idea on how to close all the gun loop holes quite easily.

Make everyone that owns or wants to own a firearm get a Federal firearm license. To get the license you must go through a serious background check, but once you have that license in your possession you can buy a firearm from ANY source. It must be a law though that anyone selling a firearm has to ask and be shown a Federal firearms license and make it a felony if that is not done. Also make the licenses be renewed every five or ten years whatever seems best...No individual or business would ever need to see anything about your background as long as you possess that license...No background checks required since the government already did that. I suppose if people feel the necessity they could add a liability clause. Something along the lines of either obtaining liability insurance or show proof you are a person of substance.. I don't think it is necessary but many people do...It is something we could discuss anyway.. What would be wrong with something along these lines?

37 replies, 2037 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply I have an idea on how to close all the gun loop holes quite easily. (Original post)
Bandit Feb 2013 OP
Hoyt Feb 2013 #1
HikerScott Feb 2013 #2
Robb Feb 2013 #3
derby378 Feb 2013 #4
rgbecker Feb 2013 #6
derby378 Feb 2013 #12
msongs Feb 2013 #7
derby378 Feb 2013 #11
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #17
derby378 Feb 2013 #19
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #37
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #5
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #9
Robb Feb 2013 #10
Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #20
Robb Feb 2013 #22
Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #23
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #18
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #8
Recursion Feb 2013 #13
Locrian Feb 2013 #14
derby378 Feb 2013 #15
ZombieHunter Feb 2013 #25
johnnie quick Feb 2013 #16
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #21
ZombieHunter Feb 2013 #24
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #26
ZombieHunter Feb 2013 #27
libertyandjustice24 Feb 2013 #28
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #30
libertyandjustice24 Feb 2013 #31
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #33
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #29
goclark Feb 2013 #32
pediatricmedic Feb 2013 #34
badtoworse Feb 2013 #35
OGKush Feb 2013 #36

Response to Bandit (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:08 PM

1. Good idea. But, I think much more needs to be done about


The types of guns and accessories allowed, how many one can acquire, safe storage, public carrying, etc.

But your idea seems a good alternative to current background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)


Response to HikerScott (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:16 PM

3. Wow, think that up all by yourself?

1998 called; they want their NRA talking point back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:17 PM

4. The Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about a permit

It specifically mentions "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." And if you need a permit for something, it's not a right, but a privilege.

I have no right to drive a car, but my license says I have permission to drive it.

I have no right to hunt, but if I obtain a hunting license, it gives me limits on what, where, and when I can hunt.

I have no right to carry a handgun in public. For that, I need to obtain yet another permit.

But merely owning a firearm? That's something totally different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:54 PM

6. I suppose you don't need a birth certificate either...

because life is a right not a privilege, right?

Or a marriage license, or a death certificate, or a social security card, passport?

Or is it a privilege to get married or to die or to work or to travel and not a right?

Just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:10 AM

12. You need to realign how you approach this...

You're typing yourself up with permits, certificates, and red tape. Eventually it'll strangle you if you're not careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:48 PM

7. "well regulated", or has that been edited out these days? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:08 AM

11. Oh, give it up...

The number of people who pretend that I can't read the Second Amendment is staggering. Please don't be one of them.

I'm already well-regulated enough as it is, thank you very much. You want to improve the background check system, I'm fine with that, as it affects the backend of the operation and doesn't infringe on my rights. But that may be as far as I go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:52 PM

17. Nancy Lanza wasn't well-regulated. Neither was James Holmes.

Perhaps you're not the problem. However, your RKBA is already infringed when it comes to military armaments, is it not?

I'm glad you've given up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:56 PM

19. I *own* military armaments...

...so what exactly have I given up, pray tell me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:41 PM

37. I misread your previous post

You told others to give it up.

Access to fully automatic weapons, for instance, is INFRINGED, meaning limited. The government can & does limit who has access to military armaments - RPGs and the like, i assume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:19 PM

5. Only problem

The USSC has determined that owning a firearm is a right not a privilege. . I do not know how that might jive with your plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:04 PM

9. Rights can be abridged

In the interest of the peace. The right to free speech doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want whereever you want.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:10 PM

10. And, the Ninth Amendment.

Someone's right to a gun can't "deny or disparage" my right to domestic tranquility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:16 PM

20. Lots of people do lots of things that disturb my tranquility..,

 

So what? Shouldn't make it illegal.

The fact that you are scared doesn't affect me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:31 PM

22. Not "illegal"; unconstitutional.

And me, I'm quaking in my desert tan boots.

You should check out the Constitution between paintball sessions there, tiger. Plenty more where the 2nd Amendment came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:37 PM

23. *checks my own desert tan boots*

 

I'm good... But thanks for your concern.

I say again, the fact that you are scared of a legal inanimate object , ownership of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:54 PM

18. Jibe. It's a sailing term.

Not "Jive".

Normally, I'd let it slide, but you're defending the Status Quo. So you get the full Grammar Nazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:57 PM

8. It's not bad

Provided the government could manage something so complicated without screwing it up. I don't view a licensing system as an infringement necessarily, provided that the license is free and always issued if you're not otherwise disqualified. Voting is a right but we still make people register to do it.

I wouldn't go for a liability clause. Plenty of discussion of that on other threads.

It'd be basically a Federal "We trust you" card. I don't think we'd need any further restrictions on type of firearms that can be owned. If I don't trust you with an AR-15, I don't trust you with a revolver, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:12 AM

13. This is a much better idea than divvying up guns into "good" and "bad" classes

I'm sure there are a bunch of problems, that can be dealt with one at a time, but I really think this is the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:22 AM

14. I think it's a good idea

The only people I can think of that wouldn't support it are those who get their panties in a wad that it would give the "gov-ment' a list of gun owners. You know, so that when the socialists / communists take power they can go door to door and take them away.

But it seems reasonable to have a license / registration etc like a car. And I KNOW there is no 2nd amendment for a car etc.. yada yada.... so what? Why does that mean you can't implement a simple license mechanism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 12:47 PM

15. Because in this country, we have rights...

...and the Democratic Party, historically, has supported the idea of Americans having rights, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. We're just adding one more category onto the list.

Opposition to the background check in the past was coupled with opposition to the waiting period (which is now kaput) as well as concerns that the background check indicated a presumption of guilt. But the NICS check has served the interests of society better than was previously hoped and helped keep guns out of the hands of unqualified buyers. No further "permission" to own a gun is necessary, nor is it desired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Locrian (Reply #14)


Response to Bandit (Original post)


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:21 PM

21. Passing one background check and then having no checks would be a terrible mistake.

Background checks aren't perfect predictors of future behavior.

I'm not saying background checks are of no value, but they certainly shouldn't be assumed to provide anything like perfect predictive value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)


Response to ZombieHunter (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

26. Forget gun owning, I wouldn't want my red state sen. to know I've sung at the WI Capitol.

The head of the state police is none other than the patriarch of the teahadists in charge.

The r's already send Capitol police out into the counties seeking nonconforming melodious maladroits.

Drones would be way to attractive a temptation for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #26)


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:10 PM

28. If they could put computer chips in guns that only allow them to work in designated areas via gps

 

that would be awesome, of course it would probably be expensive and then people might hack it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libertyandjustice24 (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:15 PM

30. check out TriggerSmart!

http://www.triggersmart.com/Pages/TriggerSmart.aspx

now that's an Irish accent! (videos)

if it costs a little more, the gun makers will make more $$$!

what are we waiting for?

i'll tell ya- the NRA to GO AWAY!

edit
: they're RIFD, not GPS. but GPS would be good, too. esp. for stolen guns, if they could be made to not fire w/o the gps part.

i'm not a gun maker, but, doesn't sound too complicated, we all have smart PHONES!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:17 PM

31. that is prett bad ass thanks for the link. That would be great. Gun control and a new market

 

satisfying capitalism. Both sides win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libertyandjustice24 (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:19 PM

33. YES! ^^^

Gun control and a new market

satisfying capitalism. Both sides win.

good to see a new guy making sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:12 PM

29. One Quick Answer to Sandy Hook? Repeal the 2005 Arms Act

But it's nevertheless a law which declares that gun transactions are somehow so necessary that the people who carry them out warrant special protection under law. This is patently absurd.

The Arms Act

The Arms Act was passed in 2005, in the depths of the Bush era, and today it remains one of the most jarring parts of a relentless conservative campaign to impose "tort reform" upon America.

-skip-

Kim v. Coxe

An illustrative case involving the Arms Act is unfolding now in Alaska. Nearly 10 months ago, the Supreme Court of Alaska heard oral argument in a case styled Kim v. Coxe, a lawsuit based upon a tragedy involving an act of gun violence. The case is still pending -- the state justices have yet to render a ruling -- but it's precisely the sort of scenario we ought to be talking about in the wake of this year's mass shootings. I wrote about this case back in March. Here, from my earlier piece, is a summary of the facts:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:18 PM

32. I totally agree with you ~ We have to pass a test to drive a car

We have to put in stupid passwords for everything on the web.
Password must have a Capital, then a # etc. so they can be sure that we are who we have said we are. It gets more complicated by the minute.

We have to show our Medicare Insurance Card to the Doctors Office or we will not get seen.

We have to take test after test to graduate.

At the Ready Teller, we must enter a code in order to get our money.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It is a NEW DAY - America has become the "Wild, Wild West"- all morning I have heard on every station -- people did crazy stuff with their gun.

In Los Angeles, a damn LAPD officer has gone bat shit crazy with his pistol and killed another officer. Channel 7 just reported " He is armed and dangerous."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:44 PM

34. Technically, already been done in many states

Possessing a CHL or concealed carry permit means you don't have to do a background check at time of purchase. Most are on 2 or 4 year renewals as well. They also let you know what your potential liability is in many situations.

All that I know of require you be photographed, fingerprints taken, background checked, and attend some sort of training/certification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:04 PM

35. Throw in a non-discretionary federal CCW permit, valid in all 50 states, and I might go for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:27 PM

36. Just what the government needs. Another list of people

 

For drones to check out. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread