I need to see your green gun, please.

If you want to buy a gun or ammo...
1.  Every two years you head down to you local police department and take the "Federal Ammunition & Gun Safety" (don't say it) test.  It's a 20 question test that is easily available on-line, as are the answers.  But you have to take the test with no notes.

2.  Assuming you pass the test (if you don't know how to handle a loaded weapon we don't offer OJT) you get a little green gun sticker to put on your government issued photo ID.

3.  Next time you want to buy ammo or a gun, the cashier has to verify you have the sticker.

The reason you have to go to the police station for the test is pretty simple, they're going to run a background check on you for outstanding warrants.  If you're dumb enough to walk into the police station knowing you have a warrant out for your arrest, you're too stupid to be trusted with a gun or ammo.  If you have a warrant out but don't know it....well consider it a public service announcement when they tell you why you are being handcuffed.  If you're too dense to pass the test, you're definitely too dense to own a gun.

Now just because you pass the test and get your little green gun, that doesn't mean you can buy a gun or ammo...you still have to pass the NICS test at the dealer.  One of the key difference between the NICS test and the Federal Ammunition & Guns Safety test is that if you fail the NICS there's nobody there to arrest you, if you should need arresting.  If you come up hot for a warrant while you're in the police station taking the Federal test, you're getting arrested.  Another key difference is that you need the green gun in order buy ammunition.

Obviously folks can buy guns and ammo on the street...if the supplier can pass the tests.  But if they're caught with either a gun or ammo by the police, they better have the green gun sticker on their ID.   Absent the sticker, the assumption is that you stole the gun\ammo.

Beef up the NICS

Keeping guns away from folks who shouldn't have them is one of the common sense desires expressed by just about everybody in the gun debate.  There's been lots of talk about the quality of data in NICS (National Instant Crimminal back-ground check System) with the NRA recently pointing out the disparity between the number of people institutionalized for mental health reasons compared to the relatively lower number of people in the NICS.  For a detailed explanation of the NICS, click here.

From the site:
Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving
A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth). The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

• A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
• Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
• An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
• A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
• A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
• A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
• A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
• A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
• The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
• A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
• A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Besides the current criteria, the following people should also be added to the NICS
1.  If you owe back-taxes at any level
2.  If you have been cited by a court for being delinquent on child support payments
3.  If you have a suspended hunting license
4.  If you have a suspended driver's license
5.  If you're on the TSA No-Fly list

#1 & #2 are simple economic propositions...if you can't pay your bills you shouldn't be spending money on a gun. 
#3 & #4 prevent people who have already show an inability to follow the law regarding potentially deadly "weapons".
#5...well, shouldn't this already be on the list?        

Of course if the data isn't being maintained and kept current, then the NICS is of little value.  I saw a report showing less than 2% of applicants were denied via the NICS.  It could mean that crimminals know the exclusion criteria and decide not to even try to buy a gun.  Or it could mean that the data in the NICS is so bad that people who shouldn't pass the check, actually are passing.  My inherit lack of faith in the federal government's ability to manage a database pushes me towards the latter.

Romney - How to Dodge the Foreign Policy Bullet

Governor Romney should become an expert at delivering some version of the following comments whenever he's asked about President Obama's record on Foreign Policy, what he would have done differently or when asked about a specific, current, FP issue;

"Overall, I think President Obama has a done better on Foreign Policy than he has on the economy.  There are some aspects of his foreign policy that I agree with and then there are others that I think I would have handled differently.  But, it's important to remember that, even as a presidential candidate, I don't have access to all of the classified information nor do I receive the same quality of intel briefings that he does.  Finally, until President Bush's administration, we used to have a long standing practice of not attacking the President on foreign policy issues to ensure America spoke with one voice.  So, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's foreign policies or not, I'm not going to second guess him for political expediency."


Why?
1.  President Obama is much more vulnerable on economic issues than on foreign policy.   Time and resources spent attacking him on FP are time and resources not available to remind everybody that "it's the economy, stupid"

2.  Let's be honest, Mitt doesn't have a FP record to brag about.  In fact, he doesn't have any FP experience at all, except for the Olympics.  That's kind of like bragging that your experience as a community organizer is proof you're ready to lead the free world.

3.  Speaking about a lack of FP experience...Paul Ryan is a little lite on that one, too.  At least BHO could point to Joe Biden in 2008.

4.  These responses leave very little room for counter-attack or even further digging because MR isn't really saying anything negative about BHO's record nor is he saying anything specific about his own FP plans or beliefs.   Mitt can control the conversation while appearing to stay above partisan politics.  He can play the  "I don't have enough information to really comment"- card, implying that his access to the intel is insufficient compared to what the President has and that commenting without knowing all the facts would be inappropriate.   If the facts are publicly known he can play the "I'm not going to second guess the President for political gain" - card.

5.  President Obama does have a pretty good record on FP.   Iraq wound down just like President Bush set it up to so it's hard for conservatives to blame President Obama for whatever happens.  He tried the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan and gave the commanders most of what they asked for.  It's pretty clear that we aren't going to accomplish much more in Afghanistan, regardless of who the CINC is, so setting a withdrawal date is fine with me....just wish it were sooner.  Additionally, whenever liberals start bragging about P. Obama's FP, conservative frequently respond that BHO is simply following in GWB's footsteps...doing the same thing GWB did.  If that's the case, then there really is very little for conservatives to complain about.  Yes, we don't know how the "Arab Spring" is going to play out and the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to a failure of leadership regarding the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya.  And Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but what, specifically, would MR do differently?

6.  MR needs some of the voters who supported BHO in 2008 to either stay home or come to the R side.  The best way to do that isn't to make them feel stupid for voting for BHO in the last election.  MR needs to tacitly imply that voting for BHO in 2008 wasn't completely stupid, and by giving him his props in FP, Mitt is giving the swing voters an out...they can feel good about BHO's FP performance, (especially compared to GWB's in their mind anyway) and that will legitimize their 2008 decision.  Now they can feel good about voting for MR in 2012...BHO was the right guy in 2008 and MR is the right guy in 2012.  "People hate to be sold, but they love to buy."  


MR is riding a wave right now because of his performance in the first debate.  Now is not the time to get cocky and to go on the FP attack.  FP isn't that important to voters right now and, in general, President Obama's record on FP isn't nearly as susceptible to attack as his economic record is.  Stay on message and don't give the press or BHO an opening on what is, right now anyway, a sideshow of the election.