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

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,737
126
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:
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
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.
 
X

x-alki

Golden Member
Jun 2, 2007
1,353
1
81
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.
 
guyver01

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
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.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Given the number of logical fallacies in this thread I can only assume this is a giant troll.
 
M

MustISO

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,927
12
81
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.
 
GaryJohnson

GaryJohnson

Senior member
Jun 2, 2006
940
0
0
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.
 
Bignate603

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
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.
 
Skitzer

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
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?
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
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...
 
guyver01

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
Ichinisan said:
Because your right to bear arms is there specifically so that you can overthrow / reboot your government if it over-steps its bounds.
Click to expand...

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"
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
guyver01 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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?
 
guyver01

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
HAL9000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

No you moron.

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

Nothing more.
 
Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
guyver01 said:
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"
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said. You're just upset that I didn't use the word "tyranny."

Here you go: Tyranny.

Better?
 
FallenHero

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
HAL9000 said:
Gotcha, but surely if this is in the constitution or some such... Then shouldn't it apply to all free men?
Click to expand...

Trollface_HD.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom