The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
1 vote

Isn't A Background Check Basically Gun Registration?

In the wake of the recent posting of gun-permit holders in New York, I think it's a fair question. It doesn't really matter WHAT gun you have, it's about if you have them or not... or are very likely to have them.

I think it's a discussion that needs to be had. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Isn't a CCW permit infringement?

Isn't a background check infringement?

If you're compelled to submit your information to the FEDs in order to buy a gun isn't that basically de-facto gun registration already? Do you really think the "government" doesn't hang onto that information forever? Please stop yourself before telling us what the guidelines are before the information has to be discarded...

As if the "government" ever actually follows it's own regulations. Ever hear of the constitution? That's a big fat regulation that is virtually ignored.

So why are all these people who are okay with CCW permits and background checks so violently opposed to gun registration? Shouldn't you be equally either for/or against CCW permits, background checks AND gun registration?

Isn't that like saying: "I'm not opposed to the 'government' invading my privacy, as long as they promise to only hold the data for a limited time?"

You have DHS compiling lists of peace activists... do you really think they are going to allow all that precious data on potential gun-owners to be just deleted after a certain amount of time... really?

Did the founders want the government to know who had a gun and was therefore able to effectively defend themselves from tyranny?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They're not

To the best of my knowledge - background check is exactly that. It doesn't confirm that you have purchased a firearm. You can be checked and then come back and say - "nah, don't want the firearm"...

As for CCW - it's also not a firearm registration. All it does is it certifies to the state that you can handle a firearm and so you're OK with carrying it loaded outside of your home.

I know that in theory both are potentially infringing on the right to bear arms, but I think it's the battle that most gun owners (and gun lobbies) are willing to ignore for the sake of focusing on more important issues like gun registrations, gun bans, etc.

A little bit here... a little bit there...

nip, tuck etc...

In theory? I respectfully disagree:

Infringement. A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. See also Encroachment; Trespass.

What if you are turned down for a CCW?

What if you do not pass the background check?

Is that not by definition an infringement on the right to bear arms?


The word "infringe" means to violate or transgress. It means to encroach. So yes, all gun laws that limit the availability of a person to posses a gun are unconstitutional. Since the second amendment does not specify "gun" but "arms," the second amendment states that people have the right to own ANY ARMAMENT including LAW anti-tank weapons, flame throwers, machine guns, hand grenades, fighter jets and even thermonuclear arms.

Gun control is all 100% BS. If the government were sincere about reducing violence, it would not be stationing our troops in military bases all over the world. We would not have a standing army. Under Article One Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years. So all present active duty military personnel are violating their oath to defend the US constitution.

Face it, we are living in post-constitutional Amerika. Chairman Mao had it right when he said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. That is why Clinton, Bush and Obama want to limit our access to weapons, so that we would be politically powerless. Well they can all go intercourse themselves, for the right to self-preservation predates the US constitution. If they want to confiscate weapons, they had better have several million body bags available to haul away the mountain of dead government employees who try to enforce any confiscation.


Give into the small fights and they win the big ones. The minute I sign the paper that encroaches on my freedoms, that's the moment I surrender my freedom. People need to grow a set...I do not need the paperwork to prove my "ability" or "worthiness". Sorry, I have that permission from the constitution. Period.