Let's say those people are required to do background checks and have access to a system that allows them to do so.

What mechanism would be in place to ensure they don't just randomly punch in names to get information about someone?

Since technically anyone could sell guns, would all people have access to that system?

If so I am sure there would be a flurry by a few to dig up info on people and put it out there (so and so can't buy a gun...wonder why?)

For the FFL to initiate background checks with the NICS Section, the FFL MUST BE ENROLLED WITH THE FBI. Enrollment packets may be obtained by contacting the NICS Section via mail at 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306, via e-mail at a_nics@leo.gov, or via telephone at 1-877-FBI-NICS (324-6427).

Persons holding firearm permits which qualify as alternatives, per the ATF, under the permanent provision of the Brady Act are not required to undergo a NICS check.

One option is to require that to be done by an FFL for a statutory fee

An option I like is for the ATF to issue "Federal Firearms Operator's Licenses" that you can carry with you and demonstrate that you are cleared to own a firearm.

...."Federal Voter's Licenses" that you can carry with you and demonstrate that you are cleared to vote?

A lot of people would like that.

You could still go to an FFL if you didn't have one.

At any rate, I have no problem with saying that RKBA simply is a right that is more restricted than the franchise.

Have a written notice automatically generated and sent by US Mail to the person whose background was checked.

That notice would include the name, address, SSN, and ID information for the person who requested the check; i.e. the same pieces of information that person had about the person whose background was checked.

That would be sufficient to discourage most forms of abuse - For example, a landlord misusing the system to check the background of a prospective tenant, or a customer of an online dating service to check out the background of a prospective date. And if someone did misuse the system in that manner, it would be a simple matter for the victim to report the incident to law enforcement.

THIS IS YOUR GUN CULTURE AMERICA

But you don't because you are still operating under the belief that "used in only a couple hundred homicides a year" is a question of measurement.

Also, how would your proposal have stopped or slowed down Adam Lanza one iota?

I guess it's progress for you to begin rejecting the "unlimited gun rights" argument.

They run around in the woods, buying mil-surp cameo. Every dollar they spend on ammo and guns and MREs and night-vision goggles is a dollar less they have to give to the Repubes. They spend all their time preparing, and precious little doing anything besides sticking "don't tread upon me" stickers on their vehicles and reading the latest on WorldNutDaily.


Second of all, my proposal, like Feinstein's proposal, was not intended to stop Fuckwad. The only proposals that would have stopped him are the ones that are impossible or impractical to institute.

My proposal, UNLIKE Feinstein's proposal, would reduce overall availability of guns to be used in crime without hurting legitimate owners & users.

3rd, I've never been for "unlimited gun rights". You seem to think that because I poke holes in your side's proposals, I'm part of that opinion. And you would be wrong.

I know it's fun, and useful, and probably reflexive at this point to call anybody that disputes any of your ideas

A number very very close to zero.

Do they need to be watched? Absolutely. That's what domestic intelligence is for, after all. Strategic, political bombings and assassinations and such are foiled on a regular basis. And that's all well and good. Find them, infiltrate them, arrest them, and PUBLICLY try them.

But let's face it, the Michigan Militia is hardly FARC or the Zetas. It's members don't make their livings killing cops and blowing up judges and running drugs and terrorizing the locals.

But why are you pushing an AWB that will not curb everyday murders, will not stop or inhibit rampage shootings, but does happen to target the preferred guns of people you don't like politically? Of course, these people that you don't like will still be able to buy guns; they'll be running around in the woods with Mini-14s instead of AR-15s. Or hunting/sniper rifles.

You're putting in an awful lot of effort and political capital in an attempt to tell people buying AR-15s that the government doesn't like them. It's a stupid idea. It's been a stupid idea for most of my life.


MY idea helps shut down the "iron pipeline" that people like Rahm Emmanuel and Mike Bloomberg is always complaining about. Feinstein's bill... doesn't.

But let's get back to your statements about assault rifles and domestic terrorism.

What do you want to do? Arrest all them and put them in "preventative detention"? Raid their homes and seize all their guns? Grind off the protruding pistol grips from their AR-15s? Revive the Alien & Sedition Act and have them all hanged as traitors?



...but at least they won't be running around with rifles designed to kill lots of people very quickly in enclosed spaces.

Yeah, they will. Only those rifles won't have handguards or protruding pistol grips. And even rifles not specifically designed for "tactical" use can still be used with good effect in that role. A Remington 7400 in the hands of Fuckwad would have killed just as many kids. Or even a lever-action in .357 Magnum.

I stand by my proposal. The NRA doesn't support; too bad for them. I'm not asking for their approval. Your side wants universal background checks and wants to cut the iron pipeline to crime-plagued cities; my proposal does that.

If it's not as sexy and flamboyant and as "taking on the NRA!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!" as you'd like it to be, well, too damn bad. MY proposal will save far more lives and keep gun owners politically calm compared to YOUR side's emotional desire to ban assault weapons.

would we use the word "Only" when referring to "A couple of hundred homicides a year"

They were *only* living breathing people with lives to live.

I think it would require an all-or-nothing approach, though. Well, maybe we forget #1 and just do it through regular dealers. But everything else... all-or-nothing.

I like all the parameters you outline, including the 12 guns a year limit, but I'd discourage you (or anyone) proposing to reduce it to 10, or even less. Why? Because of my enthusiasm for surplus firearms. Surplus guns arrive in this country in batches, and the good deals are only around for a short time. So for the buyer of a Makarov, an Ishapore Enfield, or a CZ-75 (to name three good deals of the last five years), the smart thing to do (if money permits) is to buy three (or more) of a model when prices are at their cheapest. Then one can shoot each of their purchases at one's leisure. Since surplus firearms are quite variable in condition, accuracy, etc., one or more of the purchased firearms might yield a lower performance than desired. No matter, but the time one discovers that, the prices on that model of gun have all risen. One could then perhaps sell a single one of those firearms a few years later, and recoup the entire initial investment.

A limit of 12 firearms a year would allow one to buy four lots of good-deal surplus guns if one's 'lot' was three (or three lots of four, if one prefers more multiples...)

I've never had the money to do what I outline above, but if I'd had enough to buy four CZ-75's in 2009 (when the Czech police were surplusing them) or four Ishapore Enfields in 2006 (when India was surplusing them) or four Romy G AK-pattern rifles in 2005 (when surplused by Romania, then rebuilt here in the US by Century), I could sell just one of each right now, recouped my initial investment.

Of course, if money were no object, I'd probably just keep them all, and enjoy shooting them...

-app

When it's passed by Congress and signed by the President, the number could be either 10 or 12. I think 12 is a quite reasonable number, as most people only buy a gun or two a decade.

My point was to leave enough flexibility to pursue good opportunities, such as have been presented by the surplus market over the past few years. I'll probably not buy another firearm for another decade or more (famous last words I know, but I'm recently married and we're planning a family, so guns are dropping in priority). I'm glad to have been able to purchase one or more guns per year between 2005 and the present, and have what I think is a perfectly good collection, thanks in part to the opportunities that the surplus market offered.

Had I been wealthier, I would have bought 12 Ishapore Enfields back when they were selling for $200 each. Alas, one was all I could afford, but she's a keeper.

-app

Of course. Don't want any pesky credit card records, do we?