Skip to main content

View Diary: 74% of NRA Members support the Universal Background Check (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What does that even mean? (0+ / 0-)

    "Universal Background Check"? "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"?

    There is a time and place for IN-DEPTH SPECIFICS.

    1) There needs to be a forced requirement that all 50 states comply completely. But that will require all 50 states to adopt uniform methodology for dealing with convicted criminals and with the mentally ill.

    Talk about herding cats. First all 50 states need to speak the same language on an issue, then all 50 states need to hand over the data to the FBI.

    Of course this is the way it should be, but you do realize who we are talking about, right?

    There has to be due process and appeals processes for anyone's data entry.... given the idiocy over just the no-fly list and getting on/off of it or having a similar name, etc... oh brother.

    2) Yeah, the mental health system and how it handles (or currently doesn't handle) the mentally ill, is in desperate need a complete overhaul. It doesn't help that the mental health "medical" professionals are basically all quacks. The alleged "science" is in constant flux.

    We need to identify what is dangerously mentally ill, and make damn sure those people are at a minimum, prevented from access to guns, and perhaps isolated from society and cared for so they cannot carryout random massacres.... regardless of what "The Voices (tm)" are telling them.

    We need to BAN Homicidal Maniacs before we worry about banning particular guns.

    3) Free market my ass, guns are not hummels. We need to end private guns sales, period.

    As we speak, in most states you are required to go through the DMV to transfer title of a CAR. The DMV takes the old title and issues a new one to the new owner.... and collects sales tax or whatever in the process. Why should a gun be any different.

    The very concept of WHO qualifies as a licensed Gun Dealer and what those license requirements are needs a total overhaul. One would think a Gun Dealer should need to pass even more stringent background checks than a mere gun owner.

    In fact, there should be a tiered licensing for all of this.

    A) Bottom level, bolt action rifles and shotguns. Children can qualify.

    B) Next level Handguns. 21 yo+

    C) Next level semi-auto rifles aka: Assault
    Rifles. 21 yo+

    D) Next level Full Auto machine guns (remember there are 400,000 MACHINE GUNS in private hands today). 25 yo+

    E) Gun Dealer. 25 yo+

    The latter three should be akin to the background check for a Top Secret clearance, with evaluation for your family, friends, and neighbors.

    No more "gun shows", any and all sales must go through a licensed dealer OR your local police department. Even if it is grand-paw giving little sonny his old .22 Rugar.

    4) A lot of this ties in with the need for many reasons for a real National ID. There is a way to make a 100% uncounterfeitable ID that does NOT involve the government having copies of your biometric data, yet has excellent biometric confirmations. Trust me.

    Voting, ID theft, immigration, etc all require as part of their solutions an ID we can depend on.

    5) Requiring Insurance and safety measures for storage and handling for gun ownership.

    All of this fits under the umbrella of REASONABLE RESTRICTION as specified by Scotus.

    Any total ban is inherently unconstitutional and will be struck down. Reasonable restriction would entail proper controls to assure those legitimately barred from obtaining/possessing items are in fact barred.

    It is important for Democrats to keep a firm footing in reality, no matter how you want or wish to rationalize the wording, the Second Amendment most assuredly is in place from the Founders.... Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al ... to both make it clear that we The People have a right to firearms, and to make it clear one of the fundamental reasons for this is to remain capable of revolting against a government gone awry. Yes, they had just rose up against and fought a government gone awry, it was quite present in their minds at the time of writing the Constitution. The claim otherwise is to put the "fairytale" hat on that the Republicans use on so many subjects. Let's stick to reality based lawmaking.

    Now, being unhappy about what the MAJORITY of the electorate, through the political and electoral processes has DECIDED for the Nation is NOT.... I repeat NOT (despite what the Tea Party nutz like to claim) the GubMent gone all rogue trampling our rights, etc, etc.

    Social Security and taxes and Obamacare, etc, etc are all things the MAJORITY of the American people, through the Founder's political process have decided... so get over it.

    Now, on the other hand, if the GOP pulls off it's plan to alter the electoral college delegate process so as to assure the MINORITY gets to elect Mitt Romney ( or other random asshole) against the wishes of the Majority of the American people.... THAT is a Coup D'etat. And that illegitimate government would be something you could justify rising against... and what the Founders meant us to be armed to guard against.

    The Founders wanted us armed to guard against.... REPUBLICANS.  ;P

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site