How can we regulate guns ... ?

Does the federal government have the constitutional right to wiretap it's citizens without warrant?Does the federal government have the constitutional right to indefinitely detain its citizens?No to both, but they sure as fuck enacted legislation that gives them the power to do it and nobody says a fucking word. People only give a shit about the constitution when its convenient.

Pissing and moaning about it on the internet doesn't count. Nothing is being done to change it.

Ahh, so people like you, Crash and faith are going to fight the US government (which would be you fighting the US Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force. Good luck)? You're going to wait until so many of your rights are stripped away that the government takes arm against it's own citizens? You realize 1984 was a ficticious book, not a documentary, right? If you are waiting until they round you up for the gulags, it's too late. Your little arsenal is no match for the US military now, what use do you think it will be with all the money that is poured into the war machine in the future?

YOU said it was inevitable..... Or do you think it would be politicians forcing the "heavy hand"?

The same people who clamor on about gun rights are the same people that were calling for the occupy protestors to be shot and calling them dirty scumbags.

Seems to me that it is nearly universally accepted that so much as committing a crime ia a forfeiture of all your rights even if you don't get "caught". All we need is John Rambo to think you might hurt him and he has the right to take your life among other things.Conversely, the whole lot of you have spoken freely about "criminals" and their acquisition of firearms without really defining what it takes to be considered a criminal. I personally know a few felons that I don't consider criminals and their crime wasn't violent, yet in the eyes of the law (and seemingly the rest of you) they are scumbag criminals that have no rights.Let me clarify that my usage of you in this reply was not a personal you, Panda.

I personally think the "felons cannot buy, legally own or even be in the same household as, firearms" law ought to be modified a bit so that all felons aren't lumped in the same category. As it stands right now someone who is convicted of grand theft (a non violent crime) loses the same rights as someone convicted of murder. At the very least, perhaps non violent offenders ought to still be allowed to own, or even be around, firearms. I would start with those who have at any point been committed and/or are prescribed narcotics or mood stabilizers. Doctors, obviously. It is obviously debatable about there coming a point where something you do, regardless if it is within your control or not, does begin to impact your rights. We cannot just allow mentally hampered individuals roam around doing as the voices in there head suggest if we expect any sort of safe society. Do they need help? Obviously. Do we need to work on how we help them? A million times, yes.

No. I should have been more clear. I meant people that were on a constant prescription. Example: my ex is a crazy ass broad. She is clinically bi-polar and manic depressive with fibromyalgia. She is on a constant dose of exactly what I mentioned (mood stabilizers and narcotics). She is generally stable, but has frequent periods of suicidal thoughts and wanting to go to the loony bin. She should NOT be able to get a gun, but she legally can whereas other people who are not crazy that I know are unable to have guns because they are felons, even though their crime was a non-violent one and in no way displayed a proclivity for violence.By no means do I intend for someone who goes through a "spell" to be in this hypothetical database since I totally understand that some people go through periods of depression. This would be for people who never get out of those periods. These people can live productive lives and do not need to be put away from society, but they shouldn't have easy access to guns, IMO.It is far from being even close to thought out, but it's an idea for a start.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

1) I never said there would be a new registry just for this.
2) I have no idea what method we could use. Like I said, it simply seems like a place to start. If I had that sort of knowledge, I would be doing that for a living instead of posting about it here. I imagine the same way my medical records are already in digital format and protected by HIPAA. Secondly, people give up way more privacy to play Farmville than they do going to the doctor because they are crazy and want to kill themselves. The same way that those sorts of things don't already happen. Except: prior medical history already is something insurance companies use to stop you from getting coverage. I don't understand this question. Why do I need to prove I've not been institutionalized?Look, I am merely trying to set some goundwork for the kind of people that OBVIOUSLY have no business owning guns. It is by no means locked tight and ready for public consumption, but it also shouldn't mean that we should then just allow people that have proven to be mentally unstable or prone to violence to have guns. I am also of the opinion that mental health problems need more and better attention. I feel as though we, as a society/species, tend to forget about and/or shun our kind when they show mental problems.

"Sins of our fathers" doesn't strike me as valid justification in rational society, even though I do get your point.

No, I don't. I am saying perhaps those that are not mentally fit or who have shown a proclivity towards violence (for a start) should not have the basic "right" of owning a device that's sole purpose is to kill things. I was responding to you asking about privacy, not right infringement. So, if I haven't already thought out every single detail of an obviously complex problem, I shouldn't even think about it, let alone discuss it?Second, you insinuated that I was of the position that gun buyers need to prove they've never been institutionalized. That is a position that makes no sense to me, nor is it one I have ever stated taking. I am not even sure where you got it since it isn't something we have to do for anything. So then you consider it to be trample on a mentally handicapped persons' freedom/liberty when they are institutionalized? Ok, so how do you determine who those people are?

You've made the gigantic leap that what I am proposing will violate anyone's privacy. When I go to my pharmacy, the person behind the counter can tell me how many refills of what prescription I have. Is that person violating my privacy? Besides, I am not sure I agree that your "privacy" in this case is something so sacred that it is a right. If you have indicated that you are mentally unstable and/or potentially dangerous, why should we, as a society, allow you to walk around with devices that's sole purpose is to kill? Or do you only want to stop drug users and convicted felons who may or may not be convicted of violent crimes from having guns? Do we allow convicted child molesters the privacy of not being in a database so they can be searched for by their neighbors? That's not even the sort of system I am proposing, just noting that shit like that is already in place and most everyone is fine with it.Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should just not address the ability of people who have already shown mental instability to acquire guns then, when they go on a murderous rampage (with guns they legally bought) because they are fucked in the head and the proper channels already knew they were fucked in the head, we won't have to wonder why it happened because we'll already know: he was fucked in the head and all the signs were there and everyone knew, we just couldn't stop him from his right to have guns. Good idea. Isn't that exactly what the fuck I am doing? Discussing it, right now? It seems to me that I am one of the few in this thread that has actually proposed an idea that is in line with the OP: "How can we regulate guns?". The rest of you are just naysaying "nope, nope, nope. Can't do it." without suggesting a damn thing. It already is! It's just not searchable by people that sell guns, nor are those people under any obligation to give a fuck if the guy who they are selling a gun to was just yesterday released from the 13th floor for attempting suicide or is right now on anti-psychotic medication. Or both.

So are you saying that you are quite fine with ANYONE being able to find out about your criminal background, but fuck off if we allow gun dealers to see a small portion of your medical history?

Just wanted to re-address this "question" after re-reading it. You asked me something that I did not understand, then went on to say something else about it. I said "I don't understand this question." and you took that to mean I had not thought this through or something. You made the accusation that it would be up to the gun purchaser to prove he's not been institutionalized. I don't know where you got that or why you asked that.

I said I wasn't proposing a "new registry". That is not the same as saying I do not want a registry. If it appears that way, then I have not been clear. Certain pertinent information in a persons' medical history would be available to gun sellers. This information would include ONLY whether or not you are on a constant prescription of certain medications. These medications would include those that are primarily prescribed to individuals who have shown a propensity for mental health disorders. Please don't ascribe positions to me I have not taken. You are now saying that I have made a blanket statement that I don't care about ANY privacy matters and that is untrue. I understand this is a debate site, but that doesn't mean you are hindered from having a discussion where you propose counter points as opposed to just trying to shoot holes in my proposals. If that is all you wish to do, then yes, you are right that we cannot reasonably discuss a damn thing. So the people who commit these acts and use guns for nefarious purposes are in normal mental condition? How? Who said the state? Who says that it would? You seem to be assuming an awful lot about what you think my proposal says or is even though I haven't thought it through entirely.....