Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   If the Vegas shooter had been trying to stockpile cold medicine instead of guns, he would have been sitting in jail long ago   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Methamphetamine, Mandalay Bay Resort, street drug methamphetamine, 30-day period, Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, federal act sets, National Precursor Log, Drug Diversion Investigators  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (13 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 11:09:59 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!


The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.
 
2017-10-06 11:10:09 AM  
Drug war you say? A fine example of insanity.
 
2017-10-06 11:11:34 AM  
I was sick so i went to the 24 hour grocery store for some meds.  Couldn't get any because they were behind lock and key that only the pharmacy staff had.  Even the night manager didn't have a key.  WTF kind of shiat is that.
 
2017-10-06 11:12:55 AM  

d23: The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?


Come on, dude. You know that the law of "It's the last administration's fault!" hold here.
 
2017-10-06 11:12:58 AM  

kbronsito: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There is a lobbying group of pharmaceutical companies and they protected the fark out of their product. Whether sold to meth makers or people with colds, they profited. So they sure as hell didn't want limits. Even placing it behind the counter w/o prescription, limits or tracking hurts sales since people just browse then aisle and grab something and the extra step of asking w/o any prejudice lowers sales. Also, the boxes stolen by junkies had already been paid for by the pharmacy, so the manufacturers already had their profit.

It took years and years of headlines about societal problems with meth before any laws could be passed thanks to the lobbying of pharmaceutical manufacturers. They made the same arguments Colombia or Mexico make about cocaine: Hey, it's not our fault. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. Why don't we address demand and addiction....


Any yet, I could get meth in about 11 minutes.
 
2017-10-06 11:13:22 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 11:14:50 AM  

Saiga410: ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.

Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip


You can actually buy them from countries outside the U.S. and Canada, and have them sent to the U.S. They ship them unassembled, so it's considered "parts". A workaround, kind of like replacing the stock on a semi-automatic weapon to make it function as an automatic weapon.

https://www.crowndarts.com/
 
2017-10-06 11:16:18 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


How about a bomb? Does that make a more valid point? Now my cellphone should be illegal?
 
2017-10-06 11:17:10 AM  

weddingsinger: js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.

An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.


Straw man's gonna straw.

Riddle me this.  If the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment was meant to be the focus of the "right" encapsulated in it why do several states have more clearly delineated rights to bear arms in their State Constitutions?

Pennsylvania State Constitution (Ratified 1874) Section 21:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Citation: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Delaware State Constitution (Ratified 1897) Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Citation:  http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-02.shtml#TopOfP​a​ge

The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Pseudo ephedrine based decongestants are clearly over regulated due to their use via the extraction method to make Methamphetamine.  But last time I checked I didn't have to fill out a three page form and pass a background check to get a Claritin D (Which I take daily).  My last allergy pill didn't have a serial number on it.  The notion that the sale of allergy medicine is more regulated than the sale of firearms is just plain stupid.  I can be a felon, under 18, with a history of mental health issues, a fugitive from justice, heroin addict illegal alien and I can still purchase my allergy medicine.

The same doesn't apply to firearms.....
 
2017-10-06 11:17:37 AM  
JohnCarter: The challenge is (registering guns) not the act of registering guns, it's what will be done long term with the information?  Historically many governments, as they move towards totalitarianism, have not been huge fans of private gun ownership.  Not saying that is a viable outcome, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

That being said, not 100% sure how we put in place a system to keep up with purchases.  Many of us have more than the 1 gun per person.  At an abstract level, recording how many is probably not a bad thing.  At that practical level, it does concern one.

Argument has been made, well you have to register your cars.  Not necessarily, only registration is needed for operating on public roads.  If I have 10 acres someplace, I can keep them there, drive them around, no license tag needed.

Yes, dude bought a lot of guns in a short period.  Not sure how to reasonably corral that detail and not cause angst among the, while polite, heavily armed segment of the population

The arguments against registration and collection of registration information ring hollow, to me. The 2nd Amendment may guarantee a right to bear arms, and Heller may interpret that right to belong to individuals, but neither the Constitution nor any legal decision since it was ratified guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms secretly. Even a CCW owner who carries a concealed firearm still has to obtain the permit to do so. Also, mandatory registration and tracking actually could make a difference in preventing another Las Vegas by making sure that an individual who is stockpiling an absurd amount of weapons, ammunition, and tannerite in a short period of time pops up on someone's radar.
 
2017-10-06 11:18:27 AM  

d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.


The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!
 
2017-10-06 11:20:46 AM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: [img.fark.net image 850x478]


Wish there was one of those in my town.
 
2017-10-06 11:22:23 AM  

Cdr.Murdock: weddingsinger: js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.

An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.

Straw man's gonna straw.

Riddle me this.  If the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment was meant to be the focus of the "right" encapsulated in it why do several states have more clearly delineated rights to bear arms in their State Constitutions?

Pennsylvania State Constitution (Ratified 1874) Section 21:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Citation: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Delaware State Constitution (Ratified 1897) Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Citation:  http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-02.shtml#TopOfPa​ge

The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Pseudo ephedrine based decongestants are clearly ...


The Constitution certainly does taketh away. The US Constitution preempts the constitutions of the individual States. Just ask the Southern states. And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.
 
2017-10-06 11:26:36 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Actually, there is.  But, they're too busy trying to hustle penis pills, expensive anti-depressants, and jacking up the price of Epi-Pens to care about a drug that's been in the common domain for nearly 30 years.
 
2017-10-06 11:28:45 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 11:31:24 AM  

JohnCarter: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Why are you in basement??


Dude, do you even survivalist? If your basement's not full of supplies, what's it going to look like when your friends come by? Sudafed, ammo, whatever - just have some crates stacked up to the rafters.
 
2017-10-06 11:32:08 AM  

Bonzo_1116: 6nome: Our founding fathers could never have predicted Breaking Bad.

Are you kidding?  Those dudes smuggled rum and dealt in slaves.  The only thing different is selling meth instead of spices from the East Indies.


some people think our founding fathers were studious British snobs and gentlemen.... just fyi,  the marine corps was founded in a bar by a bunch of drunk rebellious alpha males, a trend that continues to this day. And Franklin hung out with prostitues and def drank in excess,especially during his France tour. Many owned slaves and delt in treasonous affairs (from a Brit perspective),on a daily basis which would give most people an anxiety diagnosis and ptsd...so yea, they knew some shiat and meant what they wrote.
 
2017-10-06 11:35:58 AM  

Callous: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Go the the drug store and tell them you want to buy Sudafed in bulk.  Or call Pfizer and tell them that you want to buy crates of it to just have stockpiled in your basement.  Come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.


I agree. You basically have to submit to a rectal probe to buy Sudafed now. Doctors aren't prescribing Oxycodone to my friends who have legitimate need for it (kidney stones etc). Someone just wrote upthread that they couldn't get Sudafed at night because the case was locked. And all those regulations were beyond useless, all they did is make heroin easy to get a hold of.

So what makes you think I want the federal government to do to guns what they did to drugs??
 
2017-10-06 11:36:38 AM  

TNel: I was sick so i went to the 24 hour grocery store for some meds.  Couldn't get any because they were behind lock and key that only the pharmacy staff had.  Even the night manager didn't have a key.  WTF kind of shiat is that.


The law?

I once left my keys (car, apartment, and store) in the pharmacy while closing one night. The pharmacy had its own security system, and only pharmacists could have the code to disarm it. My store manager was not very happy...
 
2017-10-06 11:36:44 AM  
Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons, he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.

In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.
 
2017-10-06 11:38:55 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


Interesting that dickhead had to make the distinction "white man".

White guilt at it's finest, Fark him right in his insecure, grandstanding arsehole.
 
2017-10-06 11:39:15 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Bare Sudafed? Like....naked?

\Oh my!!!
 
2017-10-06 11:40:08 AM  

Saiga410: ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.

Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip


I had a set of original Jarts that used to be my parents'.  Years ago, I was gonna sell them on eBay but decided I didn't want to risk getting sued after they ended up in someone's brain.   Looking on there now, I see there is a market for the empty box they came in...lol.
 
2017-10-06 11:40:13 AM  

FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!


As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.
 
2017-10-06 11:41:25 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons, he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.

In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.


 By stopping murders you obviously mean doing it the way you agree with, right? Well either way, seeing as you agree that he could have drove a truck out his window instead of stockpiling firearms, I guess we can meet in the middle.
 
2017-10-06 11:42:28 AM  
I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!
 
2017-10-06 11:42:45 AM  

question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?
 
2017-10-06 11:45:06 AM  
Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?
 
2017-10-06 11:45:47 AM  

chris chrisson: AugieDoggyDaddy: [img.fark.net image 850x478]

Wish there was one of those in my town.


Me,  I don't like guns, I'm a recovering alcholic (most of the time),  and I was able to Escape from Fallon the day prior.
Town has more that one Gun & Ammo & Liquor stores.
 
2017-10-06 11:45:56 AM  
I'm not sure subby realized this when posting, but what the federal government has done with Sudafed in particular, and the war on drugs in general, is an argument AGAINST more gun control.
 
2017-10-06 11:48:32 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


You reached too far

www.djtrumpnetwork.com
 
2017-10-06 11:49:47 AM  

js34603: d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.

We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.


You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are over 22k gun laws on the books here in the US.
 
2017-10-06 11:50:50 AM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Why should you need to see my id? Why should there be a limit? Why do you assume a drug history?

Lithium is used to make meth do I need to show you my ID and only be able to buy 10 "AA" batteries at the store because of the potential that I could do something that you have no evidence to suggest that I would do?
 
2017-10-06 11:51:07 AM  
Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.
 
2017-10-06 11:52:20 AM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little pseudoephedrine deserve neither liberty or pseudoephedrine.

Ben "Sudafed" Franklin
 
2017-10-06 11:53:24 AM  

question_dj: Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


What can I make with stuff I can buy at Wall Mart?
Like Bleach, Ammonia, BBs. Nails. Pipe. Pipe ends, Baking soda, H2O2, Powdered laundry soap. A 5 gallon gas can, batteries, Alarm clocks, Wires, and frozen avocodos. (Just to toss off the DHS reading this )
 
2017-10-06 11:53:50 AM  

ZeroPly: FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!

As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.


Wearing a suit doesnt make you smarter. Its like lipstick on a pig.
 
2017-10-06 11:53:56 AM  
A 64 year old man killed 58 people in 10 minutes from a 32nd floor window and what does America talk about? It's allergies.

A lunatic kills his mother, steals her arsenal and goes on a killing spree in a classroom of 7 years olds and what do we talk about? Mortal Kombat.

Two kids flip their shiat and go on a rampage through their High School mowing down students and what do we blame? Marilyn Manson.

We are a nation of horrible, horrible people. That's really all there is to it. Gun owners are in favor of the mass murder of children so long as it means they don't have to fill out some extra paperwork and everyone else just doesn't care.
 
2017-10-06 11:54:25 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons,

He Didn't
he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.
He Couldn't
In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.
We Shouldn't
 
2017-10-06 11:54:29 AM  

GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?


It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.
 
2017-10-06 11:54:39 AM  

GDubDub: js34603: d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.

We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are over 22k gun laws on the books here in the US.


You need to tap your sarcasm meter.  The needle may be stuck.  If that doesnt work, check the batteries.
 
2017-10-06 11:56:23 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: The issue isn't about guns, the issue is about sudafed being over-regulated.  It's the same as the opioid "crisis." People seem to forget that there is a valid medical use for it.

I'm in a tiny podunk town in the middle of nowhere.  Most of the meth I see is from Mexico.  When I see locally produced meth, it's an oddity.  The fact that the local market is being supplied by the cartels is concerning, to say the least.


And how much meth do you come across in your average day?
 
2017-10-06 11:56:33 AM  

GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?


Because it adds more fuel to the argument against firearms. That's about it. What that guy did was scary. People are scared and what they want is to live delusional unrealistic quiet happy lives contrary to the evidence supporting an alternative narritive.
 
2017-10-06 11:57:45 AM  
capn' fun:Just ask the Southern states.

620,00 deaths later....

capn' fun: And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.

Good luck with that one.  Last time the a Constitutional amendment was ratified that took rights away from people, it ended well (Prohibition).  And that doesn't take into account the conflict between State and US Constitutions.  There's no right to booze it up in any State Constitution (a notion I support, wholeheartedly BTW).

When someone comes up with a REAL answer, I'm willing to listen.  Let's be honest, this is nothing but a political football.  If a certain political segment of the country really wants no more guns, then advocate for total confiscation from EVERYONE.  Door to door searches, long prison terms for illegal possession.  Suspension for 4th amendment rights so the government can force their way into homes and search for illegal contraband without a warrant.

It just won't work.  We don't have the resources.  Besides the fact there's a strong "gun culture" in the US, it's just too big and daunting task.  More people would die in the aftermath of such an undertaking (again, reference Prohibition) than die from a decade of Las Vegas' and Sandy Hook's trying to implement it.

I don't have the answer.  That's why I'm some dopey guy posting under a pseudonym on an internet comment forum.

But even if you did get both houses of congress to ratify an amendment abolishing the Second amendment, AND get it through enough state legislative bodies to make it law, the enforcement of it would be a blood bath.  Literally, financially, and politically.
 
2017-10-06 12:03:42 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


This is a Wikipedia leader board for mass shooters: img.fark.net

I think we can all agree that keeping this type of score encourages crazy people to go for a new high score. So that the next guy is going to spend months figuring out how he can break 65. It's the equivalent of the Coney Island hot dog eating contest.

So what's your solution to tweak the first amendment so that we can force Wikipedia to take down this leader board? Or are you saying that there's nothing that we can do, and we just have to accept this as a contributing factor to mass shootings as a cost of having first amendment freedom?

In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners. You can make some incremental changes, but it makes much more sense to focus on handgun violence, since mass shootings are a small fraction of gun homicides. Centering gun control efforts around mass shootings is like centering disease control around Ebola.
 
2017-10-06 12:03:43 PM  
What a coincidence, we could probably halt a LOT of gun violence by not fighting the drug war. That includes cops shooting people.

But, then again we'd have to stop voting for democrats and go libertarian, and no dem has the balls when big bad scary republicans appear. See, the WRONG lizard might win.
 
2017-10-06 12:04:40 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


Minus the black market. You forgot that in your equation.
 
2017-10-06 12:06:29 PM  

give me doughnuts: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.

Guns are actually dangerous, yo.


Yeah, I get it. But pharmaceuticals kill many more people.
 
2017-10-06 12:07:21 PM  

skozlaw: A 64 year old man killed 58 people in 10 minutes from a 32nd floor window and what does America talk about? It's allergies.

A lunatic kills his mother, steals her arsenal and goes on a killing spree in a classroom of 7 years olds and what do we talk about? Mortal Kombat.

Two kids flip their shiat and go on a rampage through their High School mowing down students and what do we blame? Marilyn Manson.

We are a nation of horrible, horrible people. That's really all there is to it. Gun owners are in favor of the mass murder of children so long as it means they don't have to fill out some extra paperwork and everyone else just doesn't care.


You name 4 people and somehow draw a conclusion we are a "nation of horrible" people? Damn, man...at least try a little for a more sound argument.
 
2017-10-06 12:07:42 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: capn' fun:Just ask the Southern states.

620,00 deaths later....

capn' fun: And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.

Good luck with that one.  Last time the a Constitutional amendment was ratified that took rights away from people, it ended well (Prohibition).  And that doesn't take into account the conflict between State and US Constitutions.  There's no right to booze it up in any State Constitution (a notion I support, wholeheartedly BTW).

When someone comes up with a REAL answer, I'm willing to listen.  Let's be honest, this is nothing but a political football.  If a certain political segment of the country really wants no more guns, then advocate for total confiscation from EVERYONE.  Door to door searches, long prison terms for illegal possession.  Suspension for 4th amendment rights so the government can force their way into homes and search for illegal contraband without a warrant.

It just won't work.  We don't have the resources.  Besides the fact there's a strong "gun culture" in the US, it's just too big and daunting task.  More people would die in the aftermath of such an undertaking (again, reference Prohibition) than die from a decade of Las Vegas' and Sandy Hook's trying to implement it.

I don't have the answer.  That's why I'm some dopey guy posting under a pseudonym on an internet comment forum.

But even if you did get both houses of congress to ratify an amendment abolishing the Second amendment, AND get it through enough state legislative bodies to make it law, the enforcement of it would be a blood bath.  Literally, financially, and politically.


I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report