A question for gun advocates?

Question

Please remain civil; I am asking because I really want to know, not to make a political point.

Are you against the government monitoring (in any way) who purchases firearms? And if so, why? Don't you think there is safety in checking someone's background to make sure we're not selling a gun to a person with a history of violence?

LongDong: So if you own a gun, that automatically means you plan to overthrow the government? That sounds a bit extreme to me.

I'm honestly surprised to see so many references to overthrowing the government in these answers. It scares me a little and makes me that much more in favor of gun control. Anyone who plans to overthrow my government by force really shouldn't own a gun anyway. But I do thank you all for being civil - I appreciate it.

Philip L: The government already has your Social Security Number - they're the ones who issued it to you. If you're a taxpayer, a licensed driver or have any credit history... they've already got your address too. As for the gun... what's the harm in letting them know you have it? Aren't you proud of owning a gun?

Answer 1

Are you against the government monitoring (in any way) who purchases firearms?

No. There's nothing wrong with the goverment keeping records of my exercising my rights, as long as they don't try to curtail those rights.


Actually, I think it would go a long way towards encouraging responsible gun ownership, if every gun were 'fingerprinted' (the ballistics signature the gun leaves on a bullet recorded) before sale and put in a database, then anytime a crime is committed with a gun, and a useable bullet recovered, you could go straight to the gun owner and hold him responsible for what was done with his gun.

I'm all for protecting rights, but rights come with responsibilities. And, yeah, that means don't own a gun if you're not willing to take some responsibility for what happens after it's stolen...


Don't you think there is safety in checking someone's background to make sure we're not selling a gun to a person with a history of violence?

I don't think there's a lot of 'safety' in curtailing a right, though I don't have a problem with curtailing the rights of convicted felons, for instance. Restricting the purchase of guns doesn't enhance public safety much, though, as criminals generally acquire guns illegally, anway. 'Safety' comes with a more responsible society. The more people are held responsible for themselves, the safer society is.

Answer 2

Great question. I am against any monitoring of firearms for a few reasons. First, is there a background check for people that work for the newspapers of this nation before they use their freedom of the press? Are people's backgrounds checked before they go into church? I say this not to be absurd, but to show that the second amendment is just as weighty as the others. Second the only reason to know who has firearms is for that of confiscation, there really is no other reason. States as well as the federal gov. have laws precluding people with felonious records and those that have a past of violence. I do not have a problem with that. However, such a small percentage of firearms owners are criminals that to register firearms is punishing those of us that have no record at all. Criminals will always use nefarious ways to obtain what they want regardless of the law. Criminals break the law, the only people that would be encumbered by the law would be those of us that obey it. As far as overthrowing the Government is concerned, many state constitutions had provisions for doing so. I am not a proponent of overthrowing our government but history has shown that most people in the world that have been murdered have been by governments.

Answer 3

Thank you for asking the question in a nonpartisan format. I am sorry that you have to deal with the insults on Y! even when asking a poignant question.

Here is my take on this.

I have gone through the back ground checks and have the privilege to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon in almost every state in the USA. I train twice a week with the two sidearms I carry, a glock .40 and a Rugar .480 ( honestly too big to carry in warm weather). All of my guns are registered and legal.
I have absolutely NO issue with having to do so...here is why.

I am not Lib, Con or NeoCon, therefore I look at both sides of the issue. If I take into consideration ALL sides, I see the compromise in the middle. I get to hold my 2nd amendment in my pocket, my gun at my side, but I also take very seriously the responsibility in carrying that weapon. We as Americans can give or take responsibility but only if we then accept or hold accountibility.

I think if we ALL took this approach to every issue we would have solved most of the issues in this country.

To hold our political parties above each other is destroying our country's unity...and makes me sick.


As a side note, how many Liberal posters have talked of harming Bush to tople the government? It is just talk and BS.

Answer 4

When you must register to own a gun all it really does is give the government a list of who has what so they can come and take them away when they manage to change the laws. The constitution gave us the right to bear arms for a reason-to protect us from the government!!! Look it up - thats the truth.


And you are all wrong. The government does not allow any felons the right to own a gun even if only convicted a say check fraud charge if it was a felony you cant own a gun. It does not have to be a violent crime at all.

Answer 5

If there are laws prohibiting felons, mentally ill past or present, violent spouse abusers, minors from owning weapons, what else can you do. Perhaps the key would be to enforce the current laws instead of making more laws that will also not be enforced.

Although the background check is not supposed to be a record of who bought what, Reno/Clinton did in fact keep those records and were ordered by the court to dispose of them. That is why free men do not want checks/registrations.

You see free people trust their fellow citizens more than the government and rightly so they should as proven in the case of Reno/Clinton.

SO yes I am absolutely against the government having any record that a legal purchase has been made. Perhaps a better way is to have the ability to obtain certification that you are not a felon, easy to do, not a minor, not mentally defective and not a spouse abuser, all are easily obtained and that is presented to the seller. Would that satisfy your needs. After viewing that you are legal, you and the seller could destroy all documentation that you purchased the weapon.

The Second Amendment was not put in place for target shooters or hunters, it was put in place to provide protection of the citizens from its government, such as the Reno/Clinton case proved the need for. We can trust each other a lot more than we can trust a tyrannical government.

Answer 6

Not against monitoring, but as the system stands today, it only monitors law abiding people. The percentage of gun crime involving legally licensed citizens is extremely small, approaching non-existent.

I aboslutely agree there is some safety in monitoring who purchases weapons, but realistically, only people who think they can pass that scrutiny bother to go through it. If you are a felon or cannot pass scrutiny, you purchase your weapons through the non-monitored, "unofficial" market.

Assume for a minute you wanted a gun. Think about your background. Now consider that if you legally purchase that gun somebody is going to rummage through your background and that check becomes part of your government records. Now, where are you going to get your gun?

The system as it stands is a joke. You are not safer and you may actually be in more danger because of it.

Answer 7

I am not opposed to a background check and do believe people should be required to go through safety training for firearms.

I do not believe the government at any level should know or keep records as to how many guns I own if I have passed the background check.

Given the background check and safety training, I also believe any person should be able to carry a concealed firearm.

Good question.

Answer 8

I am against the government interfering with law abiding citizens right to own and bear arms.

I think registry and licensing are unnecessary.(Interference)

I agree with the background check in principle, because some people do not have the capacity to understand the responsibility of owning a gun. Where I don't agree with it is the tracking of who has what. The government does not need to know anything about that, as far as law abiding citizens are concerned.

We have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves, even if it is from our own government.

Answer 9

No, I believe government at the local (not federal) level, SHOULD monitor licensing. It is a public safety issue. Background checks should be performed on every license applicant to prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms. Every felon has shown a disregard for public safety and the law and should not be allowed to buy a weapon. PERIOD.

I am a liberal and a gun owner. Every gun and gun owner should be licensed/registered at the local, not federal, level. Every gun owner should take a safety course. Every gun owner should be liable if their weapon is left unsecured. It is called "respect" - for others and for the law.

Most gun crimes are committed at the local, not federal, level. Seldom do you hear of a group of armed vigilantes storming Washington. The less the federal government delves into my personal business, the better...

Answer 10

Do you want to GIVE your name, address, social security number, and the fact that you want a fire arm to the government? People that cry foul over the Patriotic Act and its alleged invasion of privacy seem to have no problem in trusting the government with this information. If you can trust the government over the gun issue why is the patiot act such a leap of faith? After all the motives are the same- to protect the people.