Sweeping new gun laws proposed by influential liberal think tank

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

With President Obama readying an overhaul of the nation’s gun laws, a liberal think tank with singular influence throughout his administration is pushing for a sweeping agenda of strict new restrictions on and federal oversight of gun and ammunition sales.

The Center for American Progress is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House — some of them executive actions that would not require the approval of Congress — in what amounts to the progressive community’s wish list.

CAP’s proposals — which include requiring universal background checks, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips and modernizing data systems to track gun sales and enforce existing laws — are all but certain to face stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association and its many allies in Congress.

Obama, as well as Vice President Biden, who is leading the administration’s gun violence task force, has voiced support for many of these measures. Yet it is unclear which policies he ultimately will propose to Congress. Biden is planning to present his group’s recommendations to Obama this Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sweeping-new-gun-laws-proposed-by-influential-liberal-think-tank/2013/01/12/65192d26-5c2a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html

[judesedit]

1. INSURANCE!

MANDATORY INSURANCE!

[Squaredeal]

4. Madatory Safe Keeping

There should be guidelines for securing weapons so that they don't fall in the wrong hands, be they criminals, friends or family members. Negligent and reckless gun owners need to be fined and even serve prison time when they fail to do this and a crime is committed with the weapon or if someone is injured or killed with it.

[Bigmack]

23. YES!!! nt

Ms Bigmack

[Starboard Tack]

71. +1000 nt

[pasto76]

25. or a Bond. nt

[Indydem]

62. $35 per year

Included with every NRA membership.

[blm]

2. Insurance would be a great step.

.

[pipoman]

6. I am surprised how many hereabouts

have been lauding insurance companies...what about people who can't afford insurance? Should they be denied their rights?

[PSPS]

7. LOL.

What "rights?" To engage in their lethal fetish?

What about car drivers who "can't afford" insurance (yet, mysteriously, they can "afford" the car itself.)

[pipoman]

10. Pretty much 'cut and dried rights', you know,

the one's enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights?

I have seen no mention of cars in the BoR or Constitution last I looked..

[PSPS]

16. I think arguments about the half-an-amendment relegate this to the gungeon.

[pipoman]

18. A post by Skinner earlier today seemed to disagree..

[NickB79]

43. Not keeping up on Supreme Court rulings, I see. nt

[MurrayDelph]

40. Rights come with responsibilities

If you cannot afford to exercise your rights responsibly, then you may not be able to exercise them at all.

I guess it comes down to the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre vs the right to open fire in a crowded theatre.
/sarcasm off

[pipoman]

41. Poll taxes and such just don't make the constitutional cut..

[MurrayDelph]

60. Beep. Didn't address the question of responsibility

but thank you for playing "Really Bad Analogies."

[pipoman]

75. Lack of responsibility is rewarded with criminal charges/convictions..

those who use their constitutional rights and liberties responsibly will not be charged to exercise them..

[daleanime]

98. I'm sure that if your a member of a well regulated militia....

the insurance would be covered for you.

[LanternWaste]

117. And what about gun owners who can't afford guns?

And what about gun owners who can't afford guns? Should they too be denied their rights...

[pipoman]

118. The only cost of owning a gun is buying it

there is no ongoing expense aside from ammunition, nor will there be any time soon, IMHO..

[NutmegYankee]

12. Insurance for what?

I have a rider on my home insurance covering replacement of firearms, and it's $4 a year extra. I don't think it's the impediment that people think it would be. Unlike auto or health insurance, it's not used by most people.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Liability. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

21. I believe it would be very cheap.

Insurance is based on risk, and the risk is very low. This was confirmed by a few friends in discussion yesterday night. CT is a major insurance hub, so a lot of friends work in that industry. I think it's proposed because people think it would be prohibitively expensive. It wouldn't be.

[Lordquinton]

24. I think that if it were required of more people the cost would go up

that's how it always goes.

[NutmegYankee]

26. It's normally the exact opposite.

Larger pool of people paying in and not using.

[Lordquinton]

27. They why are rates always going up

when there is no need to? like in health insurance and auto insurance?

[NutmegYankee]

31. Health insurance is driven by greed and higher costs for tests and equipment.

And people heavily use it. The drugs and tests people receive have exploded in the last two decades. I'm positive a lot of it is greed. Studies have shown that the healthcare in the US is simply higher in price with no added benefits.

Car insurance is based on where you live and is affected by the increase in car repair costs. With the newer safer designs (crumple zones reducing G forces and air bags) the repair costs from small accidents has jumped a lot. Also, we are commuting farther to work on more crowded roads, causing more accidents. Thanks to the Government mandated safety improvements, most accidents don't result in major injury or death.

But insurance is an industry based on risk. If more people pay in and it doesn't result in increased payouts, the insurance will be cheap. The rate of gun violence from legal firearms owners is very low. You can pursue it if you want, I just doubt it would be so expensive as to persuade people to get rid of guns.

[Lordquinton]

32. No, I doubt that as well

it just seems that if it's mandated then companies, which are driven by profits, will take advantage of it. Even in the risk driven field of insurance, profit is still the main driving force, risk assessment is an arbitrary yardstick used to justify prices.

[NutmegYankee]

33. No doubt, profit is the one goal.

Some states are better than others in regulating insurance companies, forcing them to reveal their profit ratio and limiting that ratio. The best defense on insurance ripoffs is a very strong Attorney General and Consumer protections.

For instance, some states can deny an insurance rate increase, while others (California comes to mind) cannot.

[Lordquinton]

34. Yes, California

That would be the case here.

[NutmegYankee]

35. I saw the reports of Blue Cross taking the state's residents for quite a ride.

I hope the laws can be modified soon.

[Lordquinton]

38. Thanks

we need all the help we can get.

[onehandle]

53. It wouldn't be cheap. Guns' purpose is to kill.

Take the cost of the tens of thousands of gun injuries and deaths: That would be the medical, police, federal, legislative, funeral costs, etc.

Add the potential earnings of the victims and the long term effects in cash on survivors.

Add the pain and suffering of families and friends and their financial losses.

Take the typical insurance 'wild card' multipliers and apply those.

I'm sure there's a lot I've missed, but based on the danger of having a handy killing device in your home, I'd bet we would be talking about between ten and fifty thousand dollars a gun, per year.


Pay up.

[NutmegYankee]

56. Then why isn't car insurance $10,000 per year?

Just by raw numbers, more people are killed by collisions than by guns. And yet the normal driver only pays around $600 for a car. And this factors in the substantially higher risk of using the insurance. Many car owners have had an accident, typically using the car everyday. Very few gun owners have hurt anyone ever.

Subtract out the fact that a chunk of gun deaths result from those who wouldn't carry insurance because they aren't legal owners and the risk is very low for insurers. There wouldn't be any "uninsured" cost as that protects the owner for property damage (like they hit your car), which would already be covered by home/renters insurance.

Your math isn't there. Insurance isn't the deterrent you think it is.

[onehandle]

65. Autos have a purpose. Guns are designed for killing.

Intent is reality.

[NutmegYankee]

66. That doesn't change the math.

[Indydem]

63. You are very wrong.

Every NRA membership ($35 / year) includes insurance.

Not to mention the statistically minor chance of any given firearm being used to kill.

But thanks for playing your little game!

[onehandle]

64. Tack on an extra 50 grand for NRA members. Greater chance of domestic terrorism tax. nt

[Indydem]

70. Horseshit.

Want to point to the NRA member who has ever committed domestic terrorism?

You are seriously deluded.

[onehandle]

82. Timothy McVeigh.

Please, please keep defending the NRA.

[Indydem]

87. Wrong

Mcveigh quit. He felt they weren't string enough on gun rights.

Nice try.

[onehandle]

89. The NRA is training wheels for McVeighs.

Got it.

[Indydem]

96. What a ludicrous argument.

You obviously know nothing about Mcveigh or for that matter, the NRA.

His extremism was grown and cemented by the US military and conspiracy theorists that had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA.

But hey, keep it up. If you say it enough, surely that will make it true, right?

[blm]

36. Liability insurance for when your firearm becomes the instrument of death or injury to another.

Ala auto insurance.

[hack89]

49. It would be so cheap as to be meaningless

if it was truly based on the actual risk divided by the number of legal gun owners. Remove illegal gun users (ie felons) and suicides and there are not that many gun deaths left to cover. It may not even be worth the insurance company's time and effort - there won't be a huge profit for them. There is a reason why my home owner's insurance was not impacted by my safe full of guns.

[Paladin]

54. It Would Have Meaning, Regardless Of The Cost.

Any measure which restores the notion of gun ownership being a serious matter, of guns being intended for usage by responsible adults (or very carefully supervised minors) is precisely what is called for, right now. Because, God knows, seriousness and responsibility are traits which the gun militancy movement has done its very best to obliterate. As always, daily evidence of this toxic state of affairs is available in the DU Gun Control/RKBA group.

[hack89]

55. Because insurance has significantly reduced auto accidents?

and many irresponsible drivers drive illegally without insurance?

If that is your model, I am not sure it will have the impact you desire. Irresponsible people act irresponsibly in all aspects of their lives. Those that diligently ensure they are adequately insured are most likely the least of your worries.

[Paladin]

57. Yeah, And Rapes Still Happen, as Well.

Shall we do away with laws against rape, since those laws are not 100% effective?

If I were you, I'd support the mandatory gun insurance concept; there are any number of more restrictive measures, gaining momentum with every new mass shooting, and you know it. And I repeat what I said before: the Gun Enthusiast community is in desperate need of a more responsible, grown-up image and applied values. Any argument you make against that is obliterated by a single viewing of that video of an assault rifle* being bump-fired, or subjecting yourself to Mr. Yeager's recent frothing-at-the-mouth comments, or, once again, taking a look at the daily output of the DU Gun Control/RKBA group.


*"Assault Rifle" definition: Whatever the New York Times says it is.

[hack89]

58. It would cost me mere pennies - I have no problem with it.

I just find it funny that this desire "to do something" is producing so many proposals that will have no effect on people's behavior. It will have no impact on criminals and suicides for example.

As for all those restrictive measures - nothing I have seen concerns me. It is the same people proposing the same laws they propose every year. Let me know when John Boehner and the House repukes have a change of heart. And lets not forget that none of them are retroactive - they will not impact me or my guns.

Now there are many measures I do support - universal background checks and properly funding the NICS databases. I don't even have a problem with a ban on high capacity mags - even though, as pointed out earlier, it is not retroactive and does not make mere possession illegal.

Show me a single crime committed by a bump fired rifle and I will take that particular argument seriously. We have seen video for several years now - isn't about time you show us someone being harmed? You can, can't you?

As for Yeager he is an asshole.

[Paladin]

59. If You Have No Problem With Insurance, Don't Gripe About It.

And as for bump-firing: it isn't a question of lethality at this point (it undoubtedly will be in the future). It's an indication of the sorry level to which high-profile gun use has descended: immature, non-serious, video game level, trash sport status. The only firearms that seem to count these days are semi-automatic pistols and military-styled, pseudo-machine guns (aka assault rifles), all with as high a magazine capacity as possible---street gang armament. The resultant damage done by the Guns-As-Playthings mentality is a burden that this country is increasingly unwilling to shoulder. If the Connecticut school massacre doesn't result in needed changes, another couple of mass slayings, maybe with another political assassination thrown in---all of them inevitable, given how things are---will cause long-overdue gun restrictions to be put in place. Count on it.

[hack89]

61. Time will tell

it is not like gun controllers have been telling us that for the past 10 years.

[EX500rider]

106. Auto insurance pays for accidents..

.....as would gun insurance....no company would insure illegal use of a firearm.

[sir pball]

115. When? So...most likely never?

*MY* firearms will, to a fairly high certainty, never be used as an "instrument of death or injury to another." They're double-secured and access-controlled, and any I have ever or will ever sell are done via FFL to insure that I can prove they're no longer my responsibility. So my liability is vanishingly low (I'm not going to say it's impossible for somebody to break into the storage unit, hack into the safes, and make off with the guns - but it's a stretch). What should my insurance rates be? Presumably lower than my bike; I'm far more likely to hurt somebody on that thing!

I'd be more in favor of a posterori liability; if your irresponsibility with your firearms causes injury or death you're strictly on the hook for a whole lot of money.

[4dsc]

3. Lets hope our lawmakers find a backbone on this one

I like what I see but I wonder if Congress will agree with them

[pipoman]

5. Constitutional hurtles abound..

[Politicub]

19. And snapping turtles confound

[ElboRuum]

113. Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe. n/t

[ReRe]

8. Well...this is going to....

...fan the flames of the gun slingers.
What a greeting for their upcoming demented "Gun Appreciation (loving) Day".
Thanks for the article, alp227. DU informs.

[Mojorabbit]

46. I am so worried about the midterms

They will not ban weapons cause there are too many out there. Just is not going to happen. I really was hoping we could take the house but this will ensure we will not esp with the independent vote.

[ReRe]

47. Relax, Mojorabbit.....

..... everything is going to be fine. This country does not get passionate very often, but I'm telling you here and now, contrary to gun lobby propaganda, that this country is on fire this time. There have been too too many slaughters of innocents. And there will no doubt be many more. But something has to be done now. We have to take steps to rectify this horrid situation, even if they won't be felt immediately. And finally doing SOMETHING seems to be what the majority of the country wants! If you are looking at the Dec 14th tragedy and the country's reaction in political terms, don't even you see you have nothing to fear? Anyway, please stop fretting. Everything really is going to be alright.

[bettyellen]

83. I'm not worried at all. How many of the FRINGE who are against ANY REGULATION votes DEM these days?

None.

Although I bet a lot of frightened quiet Moms who are married to gun slingers will sneak in a Dem vote in gratitude. I think there's a lot more sanity- women and youth - in RW territory that's pressured to keep quiet.

[Mojorabbit]

88. It lost it for us before when Clinton was Prez. I hope you are right

and it does not happen again. Too much is at stake.

[PSPS]

9. Funny how the corporate press refers to CAP as a "liberal think tank"

Yes the hundreds of right-wing "think tanks", from Cato to Heritage to all the others they hang on to for their every utterance, are never identified as "conservative" or "right wing."

[pipoman]

13. Actually WaPo almost always refers

to Heritage and cato as "conservative think tank"..WaPo is pretty consistent and are not right wing..

"Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) will leave the U.S. Senate next year to become president of the Heritage Foundation, succeeding Edwin Feulner, who first co-founded the conservative think tank in 1973"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thinktanked/wp/2012/12/06/jim-demint-named-as-new-heritage-foundation-president/

[NutmegYankee]

11. And nearly all are reasonable to this gun owner.

I have faith that we can implement these types of controls without punishing innocent people. The only point that was concerning was restricting them from "suspected terrorists", mainly because of the problems with the Bush admin and it's "enemies lists". I'd want a court order to implement that action on a person.

[pipoman]

14. On restriction of firearms is the only place

on DU where Bush's Terrorist Watch List is applauded without challenge..

[NutmegYankee]

17. From those threads, it was obviously a minority view.

Most of us who remember the Bush years and it's M&M of the day color alert scare tactics know that these lists aren't to be trusted. Micheal Moore had a great take on them when he highlighted that a pacifist group had an undercover cop join them as a terror investigation in Bowling for Columbine.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. The NRA needs to fuck off...nt

[geckosfeet]

22. Yeah. That's the ticket. Tell'em all to fuck off.

[bonniebgood]

28. Liability Insurance on guns Period. Especially if you have

children in the home. My auto insurance cost me more because I had teenagers in the home.
"I said Mame, They are not license" she said sorry, they could steal your car and kill someone.
So. keep your guns as many as you want but each one should be insured for about 10 million dollars of liability insurance.
And if you or any of your children is on syco meds, 50 million. Those meds states it right on the label that it causes suicidal thoughts, nightmares. I KNOW.
Look what happen in Newtown, he killed his mother to get to her guns. Maybe his mom did have them locked.
LIABILITY INSURANCE PERIOD.

[squirefld]

44. WHAT

If your paying higher insurance rates because you have children not old enough to drive, I think your being shafted. Now unless your not telling everything about YOUR driving record, I'd find a new agent, quick.

[pasto76]

29. what is a 'military grade assault weapon'

is there a civilian grade? despite not having a pistol grip and other features on an "AR", a Mini-14 and other models are just as lethal. Semi auto and large capacity magazines. dont let those through the cracks.

[raidert05]

37. What about military exemption?

Can I still buy an AR? I mean I am in the military, how is a guy suppose to stay proficient and qualified when Uncle Sam is cutting the budget and killing my training time at work. Will Leo's still have access to these weapons?

[squirefld]

45. OH BOY

Are people dumb. ASSAULT rifles haven't been for sale since 1934 when the Tommy Gun in the old Al Capone days was made made illegal to sell, except under a special license from the ATF. Everyone on this thread seems to think that you can just buy a gun, pull the trigger and out comes a hundred bullets. Those guns are military issued M-16's, machine guns and others for military use. Every single gun on the civilian market has to fired, one pull of the trigger at a time.

Oh, the infamous AR-15 or Bushmaster. Lets see if we can use some common sense because the mentioned guns are ASSAULT RIFLES (right)? The State of Connecticut has the fifth strongest gun laws in the U.S., has a ban on assault rifles. The AR-15 and Bushmaster can be bought in the state because the State of Connecticut determined that they were regular hunting rifles. Very hard for you to believe, right? Maybe the officials who make those decisions in Connecticut are NRA members.

We also have those infamous pistols that has a ten clip magazine. WOW! Ten bullets could be fired in 10 seconds, the time it takes a trigger to be pulled in succession. The gun at my reach at night, is a 38 snub nosed, five bullet revolver. I can only shoot five bullets in five seconds, unless I have a gun in each hand. The nonsense being spewed by the Obama Administration is meant to brainwash people, against guns, not educate them. The Second Amendment is alive and well.

[brett_jv]

99. Go ahead and show me a quote of ANYTHING the "Obama Administration" has ever said ...

Concerning the 'definition' of assault rifles?

I'll be waiting.

Actually, I won't waste my time, because I already know you can't. In fact, about the only thing Obama himself has said is 'something needs to be done, and we're going to do something'.

The actual 'brainwashing' that's going on is the pro-gun propaganda you're reading in your NRA newsletters and right-wing 'chain' emails ... and hearing on Faux Nooz.

I bet you think the FBI says that hammers and knives kill more people than guns every year in the USA, right?

[libdem4life]

30. Count me in the insurance conversation however in order for that to be considered as a solution

with consequences, there need to be lawsuits with teeth and large claims...and judgments. The search for "deep pockets" is part of that. OJ Simpson's verdict happened because he had hard assets. If not, it would have been just another run-of-the-mill, LA County drug killing. Ho hum.

Aggrieved people have recourse ... estates and/or public places or private places and the institutions that support the gun culture...the NRA... get an attorney and sue them all. That's what will determine the market, thus the need for gun insurance. Not the social and taxpayer cost for after the "uh-oh"...for the privilege and the potential to wreak havoc...intended or unintended.

I know the "car comparison" is tiresome for some, but it is instructive. Next to the DMV, add in the DGV...Department of Gun Violence. It's mostly the social and political will...and the soon to be flailing NRA...that stand in the way. Their days of cultural dominance are numbered as they may be increasingly at risk for the actions and social policies they promote. Influence has consequences.

[reverend_tim]

90. for most of us there is all ready coverage under our home owner's and personal liability umbrella

The simplest solution is since most of the trouble comes from older teenagers and 20 somethings, so raise the age of legal ownership for semi-automatic guns to 31.

And I found nothing at the link, I believe to be unreasonable. But our Republican controlled house may not be cooperative. So fight for the most important reform. To me that is closing the so called gun show loop hole. Followed by better/faster/accurate back round checks.

We will see what we get.

[libdem4life]

101. Not homeowner's insurance...Product Liability...replacement of gun as property?

What is to compensate a parent and their kids when out shopping and some nut decides to mow a few down with his AKwhatever. Who is going to cover the person's loss of work time, loss of job, medical bills, insurance does not cover or it runs out, burial for the deceased, a survivor now disabled...I could go on, and multiply that many times for "a big" incident. Product insurance...not the taxpayer...the weapon industry needs to be responsible...totally.

Then, there is ongoing social services support...depending on who dies or gets injured or has to go on disability because they can't work. An injured child has to have expensive support, etc. Gun liability insurance...not the taxpayer.

Homeowner's insurance? Doesn't apply. I am not talking about insuring your gun so that if you lose it, you get another one or you shoot an intruder...perhaps that's covered. This is PRODUCT LIABILITY...the probability and the cost of gun violence spread over the entire gun owners that the PRODUCT and ITS OWNER ... intentionally or unintentionally ... creates by it's natural function. It's not the taxpayers job to bear the expense, rebuild the schools, replace provider's incomes, provide social services, expensive counseling for the family...it's the industry's responsibility.

Even car accidents that kill someone else, unintentionally, are litigated as manslaughter, at best, or a DUI. And no, it's not the car that kills, it's the driver. Both driver and car are covered. And car insurance does not cover legal expenses, minimal health coverage...have to use your own medical insurance, as the situations above. Civil suits, liability not covered by car insurance, or in the case of an unisured or misused or accidental gun event, can be very large.

One claim on your car insurance...especially a DUI or a manslaughter charge...the points and your rates just went through the ceiling for a long time...because that's how they keep it low for those who don't have accidents, and skyrocket it for those who do. (instructive for low-impact weapons, and high-impact weapons) And the worst they get dinged for is replacing a car...$20,000, or damage to property, give or take. Health insurance has limits...runs out at a certain level for certain condtions ... carefully planned under actuarial tables.

And yes, even poor people ... (what is poor?) ...manage to have or have access to a car covered by insurance...and buy gas.

[reACTIONary]

39. Liability insurance is great, but a tax covering social costs is even better...

...an annual tax, based on number of weapons, or on consumption of ammunition.

[pipoman]

42. There is already an excise tax on guns and ammo IIRC..

[reACTIONary]

84. Apparently on IMPORTED guns and ammo....

...from the ATF:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/general-information-excise-tax.html

I don't know why they call it an excise tax rather than a tariff.

Here is a short article from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/taxing_guns_make_it_more_expensive_to_build_an_arsenal.html

[pipoman]

85. No, it's on all guns and ammo and a bunch of other stuff..

1. What is Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET)?

Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) is a tax imposed by Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 4181) on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers.

Chapter 32 also imposes taxes on other commodities such as:

Tires
Gasoline
Coal
Vaccines
Sport fishing equipment
Bows and arrows

2. What agency collects FAET?

Since its inception in 1919, different Federal agencies have been responsible for overseeing the collection of FAET. From 1919 to 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was responsible for collecting FAET. On January 1, 1991 , this function was transferred from the IRS to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

On November 25, 2002 , President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Homeland Security Act divided the functions of ATF into two new agencies: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in the Department of Justice and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury. On January 24, 2003 , TTB became responsible for administering the collection of FAET and handling the regulatory and taxation aspects of the alcohol and tobacco industries. The TTB's National Revenue Center performs all duties supporting the collection of FAET.

" [Refer to Industry Circular 2003-2] " and the link should link to that particular page.

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml

[reACTIONary]

86. Thanks for the information (nt)

[NCthraxman]

48. You must be joking

More laws?? Insurance!?!?? Really???

How well have the drug laws worked?
I can still get drugs.
And, they've been illegal for decades.

All this does is create a black market.

Be careful what you wish for.

The drug war promised citizens free of addiction. But, actually delivered gangs, violence as vogue b/c of early release for violent criminals to make room for drug offenders, 30,000+ armed goon home invasions, Err,, I mean SWAT team raids on private residences for dime bags. Did I mention forfeiture?

Here is a fun experiment.
Get a few grand in cash and drive through Tennessee.
It's a hoot.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

50. Good post.

[Scootaloo]

51. No it wasn't. But welcome to DU anyway, both of you.

May your stay be long and fruitful.

No really, have some fruit.

[onehandle]

52. More laws and insurance for cars did wonders.

Funny that gungeoneers keep comparing this to the gun war.

Like guns are some sort of addiction.

[NCthraxman]

74. Oh really?

My understanding is car crashes are one of the leading killers in this country.
So maybe your not quite right with your car analogy.

[onehandle]

81. Down 80% since SEVERE REGULATION.

Suck it up. The age of gun safety is coming.

[Zoeisright]

72. Completely fucking wrong.

Gun control laws in other countries work very, very well.

Here. LEARN something:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0

I am so SICK of the FUCKING stupidity of posts like yours.

[NCthraxman]

73. Gutter mouth

Learn to speak without all the profanity and you might be credible.
Till then, you're nothing but a joke!

[wanttosavetheplanet]

79. because [bad] words are really KILLING the moral fiber of this country...

but there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with our country's gun policy!

[Mimosa]

94. Everybody here (but me) seems to cuss.

A LOT.

If you can't get used to profanity DU will drive you nuts. The level of hysteria goes through the roof on this issue.

[indie9197]

91. 98.6% of statistics are made up on the spot. The rest of them are misleading.

The point of the second amendment is to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. History repeats itself over and over again. Governments become more tyrannical over time as evidenced by ours. De-arming the population is an early strategy.

[brett_jv]

100. No, it's not ...

None of the Founders at the time ever said any such thing (unless you mean a tyrannical EXTERNAL government, like Britain), and that was NOT the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

You've been misled, probably your entire life, so I don't blame you for misunderstanding, but the simple fact is ... you're wrong.

[Mimosa]

92. NCThraxman, welcome from old timey liberal.

As I posted in another thread, actions taken in hysterical panic aren't likely to be smart. A right lost isn't likely to be restored.

In reality violent crimes have been declining. The fact that American citizens have the right to defend our safety means we experience less home invasions per capita than in the UK where incidents of violent home invasions have increased.

Also, in the UK, the possession of illegal handguns has been increasing.

I refuse to give way to fear and panic. Most of all I know what can happen when people lose the basic human right to defend ourselves. People who think an advanced nation can't fall into chaos and oppression ought to start looking at where we really stand economically.

[samsingh]

67. insurance is a great idea

[daybranch]

68. Be reasonable

why does anyone need more thana 5 round magazine? Cetainly not for defense. Why does Feinstein and others not recognize that there is no legitimate safety self protection reason for anymore than a 5 round magazine. Ten is military and even unnecessay there too. Higher round magazines are notorious for jamming and any weapon magazine not regularly tested an d maintained is more likely to jam according to the number of bullets it contains. This is why soldiers loaded the 20 round magazines in Vietnam for the M-16 with 17 rounds. We knew that fully loading these magazines caused more jams.
So heavily loaded magazines do not necessarily provide more protection, especially for an individual homeowner or family who fail to maintain them. I would go so far as to say that anyone outside the police department or the military who needed more than 5 rounds is probably a poor shooter or at least unpracticed. There is no reasonable explanation for anymore than 5 rounds and certainly no one outside the two groups mentioned needs 10 rounds at their immediate disposal for protection. Lets ban 10 round magazines as well.

[bvar22]

69. If the Democratic Party pushes a "comprehensive" and "Sweeping" "Wish List" Package....

..I fear the political consequences.

"Sweeping, Comprehensive Packages" are very easy to demonize as "Big Government Take Overs".

While the individual elements of a Comprehensive Package may be reasonable,
when they are all stacked together in an multi-thousand page bill they can
appear, or be made to appear, as drastic and over-reaching.
SEE: The ACA ("ObamaCare&quot


It would be much easier, faster, and more effective if the individual elements were separated out into single, easy to understand/easy to explain elements,
written up in bills of less than 5 pages (most would need only one)
and then offered up and voted on One by One.
This strategy would force the "Gun Rights" proponents to STAND before the nation and explain their votes on the individual elements, One by One.

Forcing a "Comprehensive and Sweeping Package" makes it too easy to hide behind
"Protecting the Constitution",

"Protecting the Individual's Rights",

"Protecting the "American Way of Life",

"Standing Up to Big Government"

"Standing UP for the Little Guy"

"SEE!!!We TOLD you the Democrats/Obama were/are Gun Grabbers!!!


Breaking it all down into individual steps makes it much easier to present to the American People and much harder to obstruct.
*START with the re-instatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
(This could be offered on Monday, and passed by the weekend.)

*THEN move to High Capacity Clips.

*THEN strengthen background check

***THEN remove the manufacturer's protection from liability lawsuits
(This SINGLE step would do MORE to limit the availability of Weapons of Mass Murder than ANY other step, and should be the major goal of this movement.)

*THEN close the Gun Show Loophole.

...everything, One quick, easy to Understand bill at a time.

Trying to put everything into one package...
*Takes too much time and wastes momentum

*Dilutes support.
(Some individuals who support 4 out of 5 elements will object to the WHOLE package)

*is easy for the opposition to mis-represent


We have a Window of Opportunity to produce effective legislation if we use this opportunity wisely.
Ill conceived "Wish Lists" jammed into a "Comprehensive Packages" is not wise.


My Opinion
---bvar22
Mainstream-Center, loyal, FDR/LBJ Working Class Liberal Democrat for 44 years
and rural gun owner who supports gun reform




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[bobclark86]

95. So, if I misuse my car and kill somebody...

Can my victims sue Ford?

[bvar22]

105. The guns used in Sandy Hook were not misused.

They were used correctly.

...but the missed the point of the entire post.

[bobclark86]

112. Umm... killing small children

is a misuse of guns. Who the fuck would ever say otherwise other than you?

[brett_jv]

102. Excellent tactic/strategy, and agree on all points ...

Well done/thought out. I like it!

[wanttosavetheplanet]

76. It would help to have documented backing by the people as well...

I've been trying to get people to sign this petition but it hasn't gone anywhere yet. It won't even be viewable to the public until it gets 150 signatures and there are only currently 21. If we could get as many people to sign it as have signed the one to deport Piers Morgan, Washington and the MSM might pay attention. Then again, maybe not...

http://wh.gov/QIOg

[Starboard Tack]

77. It's a start.

"The group also suggests requiring firearms dealers to report to the federal government individuals who purchase multiple semiautomatic assault rifles within a five-day period. Current law requires reporting multiple purchases of handguns, but not semiautomatic assault rifles."

Sorry, but these guns need to be completely removed from private ownership. Dealers reporting multiple sales within a 5 day period will have a negligible effect. We need to do something beyond giving lip service to the pro-control side. None of the suggestions would change what happened at Sandy Hook or Aurora.

Why do politicians continue to be intimidated by the NRA and it's bullshit agenda?

[Duckhunter935]

78. I assume you mean semi-automatic rifles

That would be most all newer sporting and hunting rifles.

Newer = last 100 years

[Starboard Tack]

80. Unfortunately, yes.

In fact, I would include all semi-automatics if lives can be saved. Unless we can make them theft proof and unavailable to anyone besides the legitimate owner, then I see no other solution. Everything else is lip service. I know, it's a bummer. I would love to own one. They are a lot of fun to shoot, but the time has come for us to get our act together and start putting public safety before the whims of those of us who like guns.
Let's face it, you really don't need a semi-automatic rifle to go duck hunting. How much are you prepared to sacrifice to save innocent lives?

[Mimosa]

93. Do you really feal so unsafe?

If life seems so threatening to you, and crime seems pervasive, what makes you think making it hard for people to defend themselves in their own homes will improve anything?

Do you trust 'authority' to protect you and come to your rescue? Do you think the government as presently constituted will forever remain 'beneficent'? I ask because I'm trying to understand the mindset of 'Prohibition'. Prohibiting and outlawing a 'dangerous' substance during the 1930s led to fortunes being made in illegally supplying the evil substance.

Gun ownership by non-law enforcement in Mexico is illegal. Yet they had about gun 55,000 murders last year. And most of the weapons actually don't come from the USA.

*self corrected for typos*

[Starboard Tack]

104. You appear to have completely misunderstood my position.

Firstly, I don't feel in the least bit unsafe. I live in an unbelievably low crime environment, have never had anything stolen, never been threatened or attacked (as a civilian).
Secondly, I totally support gun ownership, for sporting and hunting purposes and also for home defense.
I do not support prohibition, but I do support restrictions on the types of weapons available, as long as there is no system in place to ensure them not ending up in the wrong hands.

You can find my thoughts on possible solutions here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=94334

[Mimosa]

114. You're 'out of it'

Get back to me when you've lived in a high crime area. *wink*

[Starboard Tack]

120. I've lived in many high crime areas, just not right now.

10 years in Alphabet City, where we had shootings pretty much daily and cops rarely ventured there.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Where's the actual 13 point list?

Am I missing it? I see a couple excerpts in the article. No full list.

[ManiacJoe]

107. Link to the full report:

PDF: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GunViolenceBrief-1.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Thanks, some of that isn't bad at all.

I like the idea of moving Semi-autos to the NFA registry.

[HuckleB]

103. +1

[libdem4life]

109. Some actuarial facts to start a gun insurance solution...one not paid for by all taxpayers.

$175 billion annual costs. 300 million guns. 80 million gun owners. Roughly only one out of four of us own guns yet equally pay the cost for those who choose to have one or many.

Average societal cost of gun violence per gun = $175 billion divided by 300 million = @ $600 per gun
Average guns per owner = 300 million divided by 80 million = 3.75
Average former cost to the taxpayer, now paid by owners = $600 times 3.75 = $2,250 per year

Premiums set after verifying the purchase, registration, payment of any government fees and taxes, background check, periodic re-registration and background re-check, uninsured gun coverage. Any sale must be transacted by a licensed dealer, covered by strict dealership rules in order to transfer ownership and liability. Must carry license and registration when carrying in public...weighing on unconcealed carry. The public should know if someone has the power of life or death over their person.

An average cost per year for someone choosing to own 3.75 guns is $2,250 or a couple of hundred a month. If someone is truly fearful for their life, feel the need to protect their family, or hunt, or do whatever is legal...that's a small price, I'd think. About the cost of a pack of cigarettes a day...or a daily double mocha latte. People spend more than that on junk food a month.

But also plenty of discounts: premiums per gun initially rated by shot or ??? capacity... Other Discounts: verified safe storage, safety training classes, homes with no children, homes with children over 8 having attended Safety classes, bonus paid each year with no payout, users over 26 years of age, have verified health insurance, turning in unused or unwanted weapons (to some smelter), have homeowner's insurance if kept at home, included in auto insurance if kept in automobile, use in profession, reported stolen gun, non-alcohol user. That pretty much describes a responsible gun owner.

Yet the cost is not spread across society, it is contained within the owners/drivers of a vehicle. If $600 is an average yearly premium for a good driver with a good record, that would just about be equivalent...for a responsible gun owner with 3.75 guns...rounded up or down , responsible, legal gun owner. The evidence is produced by the owner in order to re-rate their premiums. No volume discount. For every turned in/melted down weapon, a bonus retroactive annual premium, as well as lower monthly premiums.

As to the "criminals will always have guns" is equivalent to "cars will always have drunk or underage or overage unsafe drivers" and even though the car analogy bears some similarities, and the annual cost is nearly double that of guns, there is a liability spread much greater that ends up costing each driver around $1500.

Yet the cost is not spread across society, it is contained within the owners/drivers of a vehicle. If $600 is an average yearly premium for a good driver with a good record, that would just about be equivalent...for a responsible gun owner with 2 or 3 guns.

And the cooperation of those who are 1) not Waco-type paranoids 2) legal and responsible already 3) non-gun owners who are tired of picking up the social tab ... will make it infinitely harder for criminals to come by guns, as well.

As the national cost drops, the premiums drop across the board.

A system of insurance regulation would be far easier than nickel and diming this weapon and that weapon or this caliber or this magazine, shot capacity...endless droning...just keeping the pot stirred up...not effective as they are not meant to be.
Kind of like John Bomb Bomb Iran McCain wanting to get a new job as Chairman of a government "oversight" committee on violence. Oh right, he's doing just that.

Personally, it would be cheaper to get ADT or some home security company, or get a big dog for companionship, fun and protection. That's why I don't want to pay for gun violence. There are things we can do and-or support.

Just some wishful thinking...and maybe something useful, sometime.

Peace.

[apocalypsehow]

110. Good list - and this is just the beginning. European-style gun control is coming to the USA,

and those on the wrong side - meaning in this instance the NRA side - of history better get used to it or get over it. Time to bring the carnage and mayhem wrought on society by gun fetishist's to an end.

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into...

factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent." - Rev Billy Sunday, at the beginning of Prohibition

http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html

One might also point out more recent claims of 'historic inevitability' that are equally bogus, most notably
Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and The Last Man:

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

[apocalypsehow]

119. Better get used to it or get over it - just like "whites only" lunch counters and other ugly relics

of the past that have been put to pasture permanently through legislation and rigorous governmental action to curb and eventually end them, the days of the NRA gun culture and it's endless massacres and bloodshed are coming to an end, also. It will take time, effort, and rigorous enforcement of laws that will accrue to eventually = Australian and Canadian and European-style gun control, but those days are a' coming.

Here are the days worth living, and advocating politically in the present, for:

Fifty years from now, your great-grandchildren will not be able to walk into Gump's Sporting Goods and purchase an assault rifle, or a semi-automatic handgun without a very special (and expensive) license, or a .50 caliber rifle of any kind; he or she will never have seen a person carry a firearm in public other than a police officer, a soldier, a security guard, or a properly licensed hunter during deer or duck season - nor will they want to: they will consider any other kind of carrying of a weapon in public to not just be illegal (which it will be), but somewhat insane; they will have heard of "concealed carry permits" and the "open carry" debate only through the history books or PBS documentaries; they will laugh at the notion that an organization such as the NRA ever even existed, just like we laugh today at the historic existence of the "White Citizens Councils" as the ugly, fanatical, and laughable entities that they were; they will not be so very, very afraid of everything, that they feel compelled to strut down to a grocery store with a pistol perched in their pants - they will have been educated out of their base fears, into mature human beings; and they will live in a society that has no Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech-style massacres every other month - in other words, a decent, civilized society, devoid of all that the current NRA gun culture obsessively holds most dear and precious.

Yes, indeed, those days are coming: and they will be better days for America, indeed. Not utopias or paradises by any means, but better days for America, nevertheless. Again, you'd better get used to it, or get over it. Because that is your future, and your children's future. And mine, too. And they are a' coming.