-2 votes

Is it possible to create a voluntary firearm background check system?

Can we come up with a new solution or conversation to have about the Right to own firearms? Is it possible to convince a majority that we as individuals are more capable of better solutions than the government? Something positive needs thought up and hopefully taken viral by people from both sides of the argument. The basic Libertarian agenda is to remove the thumb of force against our private lives. The portion of people who dislike gun ownership are basically scared of them. It might be possible to come up with a better solution that keeps both sides happy. Gun knowledge, training and usability might even improve.

My idea came from trying to think of a way families can take back responsibility and control of themselves. Create a voluntary form of the background check that is moderated by the direct family members of any individual. Most of us are angry that the government would be the power in control of any 'list'. The old saying of once power is given it can't be taken back comes to mind. The voluntary list would need legal repercussions built in for the chance of spiteful family causing problems. In my view the family is in a much better position to view state of mind than any government ever could. Family being in control for reasons such as mental problems or periods of depression. From the news stories it seems something like this would be the only effective option at stopping some of our 'mass' shootings.

What are the unintended consequences? Can the consequences be mitigated enough to be acceptable long term? Would such a willing registration option be strong enough reason for anti-gun folks to accept and even help push the idea forward? Would the basic idea spread to new areas engaging more personal freedom with less government intrusion? What we really need is for Many more folks to understand that intrusion is bad in all ways.

How is the general public convinced of their beliefs? It seems to me that they are convinced by the cheery happy propaganda used. Is it possible to create an alternative perspective to in effect put the intrusive corrupt political practices in the spotlight instead of the public 'safety' claim? I think this is easiest done using positive tactics rather than fighting fear with fear. Creating great conversations that bridge the political extremes is the easiest way to make politicians look stupid for intrusive rules. When the politicians look dumb and corrupt for pushing agendas against ALL people then they will have no choice but to back down.

You may not agree and I can't say that I do completely either. I do know that new methods need found and presented that actually make sense. Drugs, guns, speech, trials, property. Even during the revolution a 'majority' were not engaged. They float along like people usually do. New solutions need thought up and suggested that are capable of calling out dangerous legislation before the political corrupt schemes can create harm.

Comment viewing options

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

After hearing from another

After hearing from another member here, on a different post, I am not going to defend the 2A.

The Constitution is a contract that I was not involved in the negotiation, or signing of. My right to self defense does not come from an old piece of paper, it comes from the natural right to fight for one's survival in adverse circumstances.

As far as a background check system, it won't catch anyone that hasn't yet, but will, commit their first crime. If someone really wants a gun, they can purchase one illegally. There is no stopping a motivated crook. Where there is a will, there is a way.

I completely disagree

you idea is based on a pack of unsubstantiated stereotypes hyped by gun control advocates. There is no reason for any of these types of background checks. They don't do anything. And we all know if someone wants a gun they will get one.

I don't agree with any limitations on the second amendment

so I can't really support anything of the sort. Good on ya though for thinking outside the box. We all know we could use more of that.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Here is my opinion. It is none of your business.

I completely disagree with the person below me, and the different viewpoint of the OP as well, and ALL PEOPLE have the right to carry openly or concealed weapons anytime they feel like it. You have no authority, period, over someone else.

If someone is convicted for a crime that would make us think we should prevent the from acquiring a gun in the future, they should be put to death. You cannot prevent someone from getting one. If you can't trust them, they shouldn't be free to roam around society. Jail is rehabilitation, and if you don't think you can convert them back to good people, then kill them. You don't make slaves of citizens just because your are afraid you are putting an innocent man to death and are too scared to do it.

We also need to reassess what kind of crime is worth death/firearm prevention.

If we put an innocent man to death, God will sort it out.
This is why the death penalty is important and must be used fairly and properly.

We need to stand up and take our damn justice system back. If we can't get people judged by a jury of our peers, then our judges need to be held accountable, death by trial if necessary.

I don't find it funny that people joke about corruption. It's not a joke. Mark my words, their day will come.

So

How do we get "It is None of your business" back in practice? I guess that is the main point of the Daily Paul, so new ideas on how to win? Legal opportunities? Hope that the masses feel like getting engaged in topics that either scare them or do not make a difference in their life (not likely)? Or come up with new innovative ideas that engage the 'other side' without giving up the basics of liberty? Voluntary, the basis of being Libertarian, and innovative to engage the crowd on the other side in a way that makes them think and agree, not the specific plan of what to do about guns.

Here is how it should work:

Here is how it should work: Persons have a right to own and carry arms, open or concealed for the purposes of defense. However we understand that some in some rare instances individuals should not be allowed to have a gun, examples include severe mental/psychotic condition that would likely harm others; such decision should be made by the lowest level local gathering (say county's representative).

In other words human rights to defense will not be infringed, except when a particular individual is deemed unfit, decision made by peers which include family members and nearest neighbors.

Engage in Secure Exchange

deacon's picture

Who is "we"?

No where,does the 2nd amendment create stipulations
on who or who cannot own a firearm
That is your opinion,and it is wrong

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

meekandmild's picture

Why?

Why?