CRA was not designed to lower standards for loans. In fact, sub-prime was not a goal of CRA. This is one of the big lies of the housing bubble. CRA could make accommodations by removing non-financial biases against lower income borrowers. But CRA never said to lower financial standards.

You can read more here:

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

The housing bubble was fueled much more by rescinding the Glass-Steigall Act firewalls. This allowed local and commercial banks to act as investment banks, and allowed investment banks to get sucked into one of the biggest Wall Street scams ever, mortgage backed securities.

When you looked at the mortgage failures in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida in 2006 and 2007, which triggered everything, the vast majority of the "bad" mortgages were non-conforming (meaning nothing to do with CRA loans) or sub-prime (meaning extremely under-represented in CRA loans).

Later, as the problem spread everywhere, there was collateral damage all over the place, including some CRA loans. But again, these loans were under-represented in large part because loan standards weren't compromised. As a confirmation, the above article noted that at the bottom of the housing deflation, 55% of all commercial loans were underwater, despite the fact that commercial loans, by definition, had nothing to do with CRA,

The housing bubble was fueled by greed and speculation on both sides (buyers and sellers). But for lower income borrowers, CRA was never the cheapest (at least for the first year or two of your loan), easiest, or only mortgage available.

On the buy side, there were stupid people, there were speculators, and there were some crooks. But the crooks normally went for the big money (the non-conforming jumbo mortgages, especially those with zero down and no income verification).

On the sell side, every step of the sell chain was horribly greedy, but only on the non-conforming side that fed the Wall Street Mortgage backed securities. Wall Street was so desperate for more mortgages to repackage that they stop all the quality checks that FHA loans required. No one cared bout anything except getting loans that could be repackaged and dumped to pension funds around the world at great profit.

The sloppiness is a big reason why foreclosures are moving so slowly. Banks that originated the non-conforming mortgages still can't prove they ever owned the properties, or had the right to service them (that would have required proper paperwork, and when your in the midst of a scam who cares about costly proper paperwork).

CRA loans, on the other hand, had all the proper paperwork, and were much less likely to be sold by the originating bank (which viewed their local loans as safe and profitable).

Unlike most gun advocates, I think every gun should be registered. To me, that is a reasonable responsibility that belongs with the right to own guns. I'm far more concerned about rogue militias and criminals with huge, unregistered arsenals, than I am with any thought that Big Brother is coming after my guns.

I think rights to use guns should be like drivers licenses.

In most states you need to be a certain age to get a learner's permit. Age is about the only restriction, other than needing an adult around when you drive.

Then, you take both a written and usage test, and get a provisional license. It allows you to drive, but with certain stipulations (hours limitations, passenger limitations, etc.). For guns, this could be a limit of a single gun or rifle, limitations on ammunition, maybe where you can use the gun (a shooting range, hunting in season, etc.).

When you prove you can handle the responsibility, both by capability and by time frame, you can move up to a regular license. This can perhaps allow you to own multiple weapons (regular revolvers and rifles), carry and use them whenever and wherever is legal in your state, and have a higher threshold of ammunition you can carry when out of your house. I would expect that clips holding more than 10 or 15 bullets would not be a part of this "license".

I would think that heavier military-style weapons, like semiautomatic and automatic weapons, might require additional licensing, like a commercial drivers license. These licenses might be based upon additional need, training and / or experience.

If you get to the point where you want a legal arsenal and ammo dump in your home, I think if you have the proper licenses it should be allowed. But your homeowner's or personal insurance should have extra coverage. That way, if something goes wrong, your town and your neighbors have some financial coverage if they are adversely impacted.

Please note that I think everyone should have the right to each of these different levels, so long as they aren't psycho or violent. But some of the more advanced licenses might require some financial commitment. The problem in the current environment is that too many think "regulation" or 'licensing" is the first step towards "banning".

In most of the "Front Page Headline" shootings, the individuals go out and buy weapons in the days or weeks before committing their atrocity. The scheme described above would minimize, but not eliminate the problem. It would have severely lowered the firepower in the Gabby Gifford shooting, and in the Aurora, Colorado shooting. It would likely have done little in the Sikh temple shooting.