• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YAGunT: Should Fed/states track the serial # of guns?

JEDI

Lifer
Apparently the fed govt and most states dont keep records of who bought guns.

when you buy a gun from a dealer, all he's doing is a background check to see if he can sell you a gun. but he doesnt enter the info of what gun u bought and it;s serial # into a govt database. (he might keep the info in his store's computer system, but it's not sent anywhere.)

i think thats rediculous. Cars are tracked.
why not guns? it has much more potential of being deadly than cars.
 
Last edited:
No.
Cuz it wont help and only cause excess work for the gun stores and private citizens.
Ditto cars.

I swear the main reason congress comes up with these ideas is to create more government jobs.
 
Fuck no!

As JEDI said, when you buy a firearm from a dealer he keeps records of who bought what type of gun and serial number. However if that dealer closes his business for whatever reason all records are turned over to the ATF. So in a way the goverment can get that info.
 
A database already exists.

The ATF Federal Firearms Licensee database lists all federally approved gun dealers in the United States. That includes stores, rifle clubs, museums and individuals who want to own guns that require a ATF permit.

I don't know what is covered under "guns that require an ATF permit" .. but i don't see why it would be difficult to expand that to cover all guns.
 
Would be fine with me. I have no issues with it but I don't think it would do anything to help with crime or violence involving guns. I would love to see much, much stricter laws but the criminals will always have access to the weapons.
 
I think the common belief of the anti-gun control crowd is that national gun registration would allow a tyrannical federal government to easily disarm any resistance to its tyranny.

As a gun owner I don't have a problem with it. I hate slippery-slope arguments. I would absolutely fight back if the government attempted to disarm me - knowing I have guns wouldn't make that any easier on them.
 
I don't think it would be a good thing, and not because of the the typical "Oh no they're trying to take away our guns" argument. Instead, it would just add extra cost without any benefit. Criminals would still get access to guns when they wanted to, there wouldn't be any real extra traceability of guns used in crimes (serial numbers can be removed).

In the end it would just increase the cost and difficulty of normal people getting access to something they can legally purchase without doing a thing to curb the criminals.
 
There's no way you could track all guns by serial number. Most of my firearms where bought from private parties, some using a simple bill of sale others with no paperwork at all just a show of State ID. I'm sure there are millions of unregistered firearms out there ... how do you track those?
 
Makes sense to me, it would be a lot easier if your gun ever gets stolen and it then ultimately turns up in a shop somewhere etc. I see no downsides...
 
Because your right to bear arms is there specifically so that you can overthrow / reboot your government if it over-steps its bounds.

Wow. You completely missed the whole point of the second amendment.

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary.


Thomas Jefferson stated himself "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Tyranny in government is NOT "overstepping its bounds"

Note the caveat he threw in there.. AS A LAST RESORT.

He did not mean "hey, the gubmint is doing something i dont like.. lets revolt"
 
Thomas Jefferson stated himself "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

That's interesting, I'd not heard that before. Does that therefore mean that people who have committed a crime are not free men? I was under the impression that ex convicts of certain crimes could not legally own a gun?
 
That's interesting, I'd not heard that before. Does that therefore mean that people who have committed a crime are not free men? I was under the impression that ex convicts of certain crimes could not legally own a gun?

No you moron.

In 1776, a free man was a person not in slavery or serfdom.

Nothing more.
 
Wow. You completely missed the whole point of the second amendment.

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary.


Thomas Jefferson stated himself "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Tyranny in government is NOT "overstepping its bounds"

Note the caveat he threw in there.. AS A LAST RESORT.

He did not mean "hey, the gubmint is doing something i dont like.. lets revolt"
That's exactly what I said. You're just upset that I didn't use the word "tyranny."

Here you go: Tyranny.

Better?
 
Gotcha, but surely if this is in the constitution or some such... Then shouldn't it apply to all free men?

Trollface_HD.jpg
 
Back
Top