No I don't particularly have a philosophical objection to the government taking some steps in seeing that people who quite obviously should not have guns do not have them. There is an obligation of the government to protect that safety of the people.
But just the collection of that information on the populace at large can have alternative usages. Much the same as the collection of DNA can have alternative usages beyond that of identification.
But since we are on the subject, you say that the government should be able, via background checks, to screen out criminals from owning a firearm. What is your definition of a criminal?
My definition is irrelevant. Here's the definitions that matter:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The restriction also applies, under 18 USC 922(n), to anyone under indictment for a felony.
In other words, convicted felons and abusers, fugitives, illegal drug users/addicts, mental defectives or those who have been committed to a mental institution, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged ex-military, those who have renounced their citizenship or are under indictment for a felony, and those subject to certain types of restraining orders where the restrained person was found by a court to pose a credible threat.
By the way, if I was king, I would at the very least modify the language of 922(g) to apply only to those convicted of violent felonies, or something along those lines.