The Federal Bureau of Investigation, commonly referred to as the FBI, is responsible for enforcing federal laws that are broken within the United States. It is also known for being an agency that operates in secrecy and has a vast array of resources at its disposal. Recently, however, information has surfaced suggesting that the FBI may be secretly orchestrating a scheme to grab guns from law-abiding American citizens.
This revelation came to light when leaked documents from the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division were published in The Intercept, a news outlet that has been known to report on stories of government abuse of power. The documents, which were dated from 2017, outline an initiative referred to as the “Don’t Start” program, which aims at preventing people who are believed to pose a threat from procuring firearms.
According to the documents, the FBI has formulated a plan that involves sending agents to gun stores to conduct interviews with individuals who attempt to purchase firearms. These interviews are designed to assess the mental health and overall character of the prospective gun owners. In cases where the agents deem a person to be a risk, they are instructed to discreetly notify local law enforcement to intervene and potentially confiscate any guns they own.
The FBI argues that this program is necessary to prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence from taking place. According to the leaked documents, the FBI’s internal messaging about the program suggests that it is aimed at preventing individuals who “are violent or have the potential to become violent” from obtaining firearms.
While this may seem like a reasonable goal, the Don’t Start program has raised a number of concerns among civil liberties advocates and gun rights activists. Some are worried that the program is being used as a back door to institute gun control measures that are not supported by the American public.
For example, the program’s reliance on interviews conducted by FBI agents raises concerns that the assessments being made are subjective and based on an individual’s personal biases. There is no set criteria that agents are instructed to use when assessing someone’s mental state or overall character, which means that there may be inconsistencies in how different agents interpret the same information.
Additionally, there is a worry that law-abiding citizens may be unfairly targeted by the program. In theory, it is possible for someone to be deemed a threat and have their guns confiscated even if they have never exhibited any violent tendencies or broken any laws. This has been a particular concern for those who worry that the Second Amendment is being eroded and that the government is slowly taking away Americans’ right to bear arms.
Those in favor of the program argue that it is a necessary measure to prevent gun violence, which is a serious issue in the United States. Indeed, there have been a number of high-profile mass shootings in recent years, which have led to widespread calls for increased gun control measures.
Furthermore, proponents argue that the program is not an example of government overreach or an attempt to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. Instead, they suggest that it is a targeted measure aimed at preventing individuals who are a threat from owning firearms. Moreover, they argue that gun ownership is not an absolute right but a regulated privilege.
The Don’t Start program is just the latest example of how the United States is grappling with the issue of gun violence. With no consensus on how to deal with the issue, it is likely that we will continue to see these types of initiatives emerge in the future.
One of the biggest concerns with the program is that it violates the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy. While it is true that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring public safety, it is also true that individuals have the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion.
The Don’t Start program, which involves the federal government sending agents to conduct interviews with citizens at gun stores, raises serious questions about the government’s power to investigate and snoop on individuals without proper justification. Are American citizens expected to acquiesce to interviews conducted by FBI agents, just because they want to purchase a firearm?
Another issue is that this program opens up the possibility of government misuse. Could the Don’t Start protocol be used as a way for the government to identify and monitor individuals based on their political beliefs or affiliations? This could be seen as a way for the government to target individuals who advocate for gun rights or are involved with certain groups.
Furthermore, some worry that if this program is successful, it may lead to other policies that further restrict gun ownership. If the government is able to use subjective and potentially biased assessments of an individual’s character and background to determine whether they should own a firearm, what else could they use as a basis for confiscating guns?
There is no doubt that gun violence is a complex issue that requires nuanced solutions. Policymakers must grapple with how to balance the rights of individuals with the government’s obligation to protect the public. But Don’t Start, with its potential violations of the Fourth Amendment, targeting of law-abiding citizens, and potential for government misuse, may not be the right answer. Instead of relying on secretive schemes, policymakers must engage in open and honest discussions about how to reduce gun violence without infringing on individual rights.
English 
Español de Venezuela 