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  
•       •       •

3568 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (10 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

 
2017-10-06 12:08:25 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


When govts quit killing their citizens at the rate of 290 million a century your point might be valid
 
2017-10-06 12:10:12 PM  
Cdr.Murdock:
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.


The sale of shovels, waterproof containers and the like would literally go off the charts.  Not to mention the shootouts in the streets between formerly law abiding citizens and searchers.  Mayhem would in fact ensue
 
2017-10-06 12:11:00 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: 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.


Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.
 
2017-10-06 12:12:07 PM  
Just as a case in point.. my husband had hip surgery last week.. I needed to get him a refill on the pain meds (low dosage of oxycodon)..
I had to drive to the Dr. to pick up the script.
They can't call them in.
They can't have refills on them.
When I got to the pharmacy, they didn't have enough in stock to fill the script.
They can't partial fill. If you take the partial amount, you can't come back for what they owe you.
They can't call to other pharmacies to see if they have the drug in stock. It is illegal for them to tell anyone over the phone what they have in stock.
So 4 pharmacies later, I found one that had the amount needed.
They need to scan your driver's license. People cannot pick up the drug for you unless they have it in hand.
You need to sign your name in several places.
The state keeps track of how many pills you have been prescribed. If you get too many, the pharmacy can deny it to you.

If you go to a gun show here, and have a permit, you can walk out with 2 guns ..
 
2017-10-06 12:13:25 PM  

ChuckRoddy: 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.


As the resident gun nut in this thread, yes and no. Yes, stopping the war on drugs entirely would greatly reduce gun homicides based on turf wars and so on. But you'd still have violence as in robberies, muggings, carjackings, etc etc.

The real enemy is the two party system. If Libertarians and the Green Party could get influence in the legislative process proportional to their membership, things would change. But of course that's about as likely as repealing the second amendment. Right now, someone who's a libertarian is shut out of the process altogether. And my vote for president while in Missouri is about as consequential as a fart in a hurricane.
 
2017-10-06 12:17:04 PM  

abhorrent1: 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!


Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.
 
2017-10-06 12:19:50 PM  

ZeroPly: 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.


So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.
 
2017-10-06 12:21:47 PM  

capn' fun: 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.


Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.
 
2017-10-06 12:21:48 PM  

fark_the_herald_angel_sings: Just as a case in point.. my husband had hip surgery last week.. I needed to get him a refill on the pain meds (low dosage of oxycodon)..
I had to drive to the Dr. to pick up the script.
They can't call them in.
They can't have refills on them.
When I got to the pharmacy, they didn't have enough in stock to fill the script.
They can't partial fill. If you take the partial amount, you can't come back for what they owe you.
They can't call to other pharmacies to see if they have the drug in stock. It is illegal for them to tell anyone over the phone what they have in stock.
So 4 pharmacies later, I found one that had the amount needed.
They need to scan your driver's license. People cannot pick up the drug for you unless they have it in hand.
You need to sign your name in several places.
The state keeps track of how many pills you have been prescribed. If you get too many, the pharmacy can deny it to you.

If you go to a gun show here, and have a permit, you can walk out with 2 guns ..


If only there was a way to make a firearm out of pseudoephedrine, amiright? For the solution to your confusion research how this move is making someone mega rich or how the old way was making someone lose profits.
 
2017-10-06 12:22:34 PM  

ZeroPly: 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??


I was only addressing the bold above.  They placed limits on how much you can legally buy in a month, so a stockpile would take a long period of time to legally build up.  So should you build up a stockpile over a long period of time and they discover the pattern of purchases or the stockpile you going to get anal probed at best and imprisoned at worst.  And your stockpile is going to get seized with no compensation.  The fact that you violated no laws will not matter as we are quick to sacrifice freedom on the alter of perceived safety.  And they will threaten you with prosecution on trumped up charges if you make any waves.  And considering that meth can be made with a soda bottle and a couple household chemicals, that you likely own, they probably can boogeyman you into a jury conviction without any real evidence of wrongdoing.
 
2017-10-06 12:25:34 PM  

geggam: Cdr.Murdock: 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.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.


Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.
 
2017-10-06 12:25:49 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.


Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.
 
2017-10-06 12:27:52 PM  

dk47: ZeroPly: 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.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.


Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want them to do

You don't like my "hobby"? Here's what you can do - go f*ck yourself. The reason idiots like you don't get anywhere, is because all you do is foam at the mouth in Internet forums.
 
2017-10-06 12:30:27 PM  

Norfolking Chance: The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.


So use the internal mechanism (Article 5) and change the damn document to match the current times.
 
2017-10-06 12:33:59 PM  

ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.



Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:08 PM  

kittyhas1000legs: 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...


The pills shouldn't be locked away in the pharmacy.  It's an OTC product that doesn't need a pharmacist to handle.  All of those items need to be in an area where a manager has access 24/7 just like the baby formula.

I'm tired of feeling like a damn criminal whenever I want pills when I'm sick.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:12 PM  

Norfolking Chance: geggam: Cdr.Murdock: 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.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.

Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.


Slavery is reviled you say but every day I see another wage slave go so deep in debt they can never escape. 

Calling the Constitution obsolete is interesting ( read stupid ) . Perhaps you can get some folks together and have a civil war and write a better one. 

Im doubting it though
 
2017-10-06 12:36:03 PM  

roddack: 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?


No, but if you have those and a couple other benign things you can be charged with  having precursors.
 
2017-10-06 12:37:59 PM  

ZeroPly: dk47: ZeroPly: 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.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.

Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want the ...


There you go making my point for me: 1. shiatheads 2. shiatheads 3. shiatheads 4. shiatheads 5. assholes.

Wanna know why nobody cares about regulating my hobbies?  'Cause nobody gets killed because of them.
 
2017-10-06 12:40:03 PM  
ZeroPly:
This is a Wikipedia leader board for mass shooters: [img.fark.net image 763x208]

Um, the David Burke one was a plane crash, not a shooting, per se. He shot the pilots. Everyone else died when the plane crashed.
 
2017-10-06 12:41:58 PM  

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

Guns are actually dangerous, yo.


People on or coming off of SSRI drugs that get guns are even more dangerous, yo.
 
2017-10-06 12:42:47 PM  

FlyingBacon: The Vegas shooter will always be a mystery. Just the way he wants it. He knew that we will be talking about him for years to come. Mystery always keep people talking.


I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

A society saturated in (and infatuated with) instruments of death has its scheduled biweekly mass murder. We love celebrity, wealth, and violence...not human life. Hell, we spent a trillion dollars on an flying weapon of death but we kick, scream and protest when someone suggests we provide healthcare TO OUR FARKING SELVES.

This violence IS who we are. The female orgasm is a mystery. Not this shooting.
 
2017-10-06 12:43:23 PM  

weddingsinger: /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.


It says well-regulated when talking about the rights of states to have a militia. That's like arguing that we only have the right to peacefully assemble when we're going to church.

But your second point is the important, valid one. I have yet to see any suggestions of any laws which are both Constitutional and would actually make a difference - except perhaps outlawing bump-stocks that let you fire semi-automatic weapons at insane rates.

If we want to significantly restrict who can have firearms, who can carry firearms, and who can keep firearms then we need to have a significant discussion on amending the Constitution.
 
2017-10-06 12:45:16 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: 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.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.


I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who support the status quo.
 
2017-10-06 12:46:01 PM  

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


*angrily eyes number of slashies....
 
2017-10-06 12:46:16 PM  

dk47: abhorrent1: 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!

Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.


Boy has that helped.  Wow look how well CMEA has worked since 2005.  I'm so glad we now have this overly burdensome law that drove manufacturers and jobs overseas and puts someone seeking relief from a cold or allergies on a government watch list.
d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net
 
2017-10-06 12:48:45 PM  

give me doughnuts: Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.

Knife:
[img.fark.net image 355x355]
Plane:
[img.fark.net image 680x365]

There is a slight difference between the two.


Did they hijack a plane using another plane? Where did they get the first plane from to hijack the other plane?

No knives = no plane = no sudden impact into buildings, followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.
 
2017-10-06 12:49:55 PM  
"The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 requires persons must steal anything containing pseudoephedrine"
 
2017-10-06 12:50:35 PM  

gar1013: give me doughnuts: Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.

Knife:
[img.fark.net image 355x355]
Plane:
[img.fark.net image 680x365]

There is a slight difference between the two.

Did they hijack a plane using another plane? Where did they get the first plane from to hijack the other plane?

No knives = no plane = no sudden impact into buildings, followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.


Then we should take everyone's money away because they can use that to buy knives and hijack planes and then fly them into buildings.

See how silly that sounds?
 
2017-10-06 12:51:44 PM  
How many guns did he actually use?

I don't see how 30 guns are more deadly than one, in the hands of one man
 
2017-10-06 12:54:47 PM  

Callous: ZeroPly: 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??

I was only addressing the bold above.  They placed limits on how much you can legally buy in a month, so a stockpile would take a long period of time to legally build up.  So should you build up a stockpile over a long period of time and they discover the pattern of purchases or the stockpile you going to get anal probed at best and imprisoned at worst.  And your stockpile is going to get seized with no compensation.  The fact that you violated no laws will not matter as we are quick to sacrifice freedom on the alter of perceived safety.  And they will threaten you with prosecution on trumped up charges if you make any waves.  And considering that meth can be made with a soda bottle and a couple household chemicals, that you likely own, they probably can boogeyman you into a jury conviction without any real evidence of wrongdoing.


Very unlikely to happen to me personally, since I have a clean record and have no problem fighting back against the prosecutor just for the entertainment value. But your point about prosecutorial overreach is spot on - they will find anything they can to get you to plead guilty to an entirely legal act.

And yet, people in this thread think I should trust these same people with details of my gun collection...
 
2017-10-06 12:56:45 PM  

Callous: dk47: abhorrent1: 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!

Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.

Boy has that helped.  Wow look how well CMEA has worked since 2005.  I'm so glad we now have this overly burdensome law that drove manufacturers and jobs overseas and puts someone seeking relief from a cold or allergies on a government watch list.
[d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net image 800x482]


And that's just deaths. I'm sure there are stats out there on arrests for manufacture and other meth related crime too. Maybe it's just social media and the news cycle but the meth problem seems to me to have gotten worse, not better over the last 10 years, including labs.
 
2017-10-06 12:57:51 PM  

hobnail: 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!

Why? It's still a pretty effective decongestant.  Worth it (to me) to put myself on a watchlist in order to have it around when I need it.

/normally I just take nettle extract for my sinuses


Phenylephrine works just as well, without overdrying. And I don't have to show ID/have a limit.
 
2017-10-06 12:58:21 PM  

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?


Yeah man. I'm seriously addicted to cedar and juniper pollen. Cat dander too. It's just like, such an incredible high, man.
 
2017-10-06 12:59:12 PM  

capn' fun: 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.


The argument made above wasn't "registration is Unconstitutional". The argument was "I don't trust the government to hold that information without using it illegally".
 
2017-10-06 12:59:23 PM  

TheVirginMarty: 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!

Allegra is way better at controlling my allergies when they flare up.


Allegra is an antihistamine. Allegra-D contains pseudoephedrine. As a decongestant, it's really aggressive anyway. Phenylephrine is just as effective and less aggressive.
 
2017-10-06 01:01:22 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: 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.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who ...


The problem is in the "overwhelming majority" part. Yes, if you have an overwhelming majority, it could happen. But Scalia calculated that just 4% of the population in the right states could block a constitutional amendment.

It didn't happen after Sandy Hook. If a mass shooting of 20 elementary school students isn't enough, what exactly do you think it will take?

This "masses will rise up" idea is great in theory, but in reality gun control has been eroding over the last decade, not tightening.
 
2017-10-06 01:05:54 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: 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.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.


I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.
 
2017-10-06 01:08:25 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: 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.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who ...


They haven't been increasing in frequency.
There are no "practical restrictions" that would stop these kinds of killers.  Mass murderers have used just about every kind of firearm there is to kill large numbers of people, in addition to IEDs, vehicles, and fire.

Mass shooting are a very small proportion of firearm deaths, committed by 5-15 people a year.  What solution do you have that could possibly make even a small dent in the problem?
 
2017-10-06 01:10:16 PM  
That's the sad truth.  I just LOVE being treated like a criminal because I caught a farking cold and want to sleep, so I buy Ny-Quil.

It's easier to buy a trunk full of alcohol, 37 guns, 75 knives, a boat anchor (without a boat), a mase, mace, or anything else you want...  unless it is a single bottle of cold medicine.
 
2017-10-06 01:11:02 PM  

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?


It's stupid that's what's wrong with it. It's not like being carded for buying beer. They scan the bar-code on the back of your license. I don't know where that information goes. I also had to fill out and sign a form. It's just dumb.

I got the same treatment buying a can black spray paint at HD that I was using to paint the lamp post in front of my house. No form but they scanned the bar-code on the back of my license. Why? I'm a middle aged, cargo shorts wearing, suburban white guy.  Do they think I'm gonna go out tagging or huffing?

I've also been carded buying a can of dust-off. Where does it end?
 
2017-10-06 01:11:31 PM  

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.


Is the purchase of them subject to background checks, licensing requirements, quantity limits, etc.?

The answer is no.

Trucks are not regulated like guns even in countries like France despite their use in a massacre that killed 84 and injured 458 in a span of only a few minutes.
 
2017-10-06 01:12:58 PM  

weddingsinger: /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.


Absolutely correct. All you have to do is get 38 states to ratify your amendment. Now take a look at this list:

Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming

Which one of those states are you going to convince to vote for your proposal? You need at least one. Notice that I didn't even put Texas in there, since I don't even consider them in the top 13 who would oppose a 2nd amendment change.

The problem with your idea is that under the US system, states have disproportionate influence vs citizens. Changing the 2nd amendment is far more difficult than most people realize.
 
2017-10-06 01:13:48 PM  

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.

 
Sudafed is not more heavily regulated than firearms.  What do you mean 'hiding behind the 2nd'?   If someone was engaging protected speech that wasn't popular, would you tell them to stop hiding behind the 1st amendment because we can literally change the law as a country, via an amendment?
 
2017-10-06 01:13:53 PM  
When I was a user, the quality of meth went up after the pseudoephedrine regs and production moved to Mexico.

Gun enthusiasts might experience similar gains
 
2017-10-06 01:16:25 PM  

chris chrisson: 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.


But you neglect to mention how arming the citizenry with "more guns" would've solved this incident.

As for the black market--it would make guns, especially semi-automatics--prohibitively expensive for most people. That might not have stopped a multi-millionaire like Paddock, but if such guns are $40,000 like fully-automatic black market guns are, that would eliminate access for 99.9% of mass shooters. I'm all for it.
 
2017-10-06 01:17:08 PM  

MattytheMouse: We don't need to drag politics into this issue that is clearly all the Democrats fault. No amount of regulation could have prevented this tragedy, except for perhaps Barack Obama's anti-gun deregulation of bump stocks, which should not be reexamined in any meaningful way by congress, at all. Nancy Pelosi should step down.


If he hadn't had a bump stock, he could never have fired the gun just as fast as his finger would allow.  Nope, not possible.

It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
Hell, a bunch of pro-gun control idiots went on a twitter storm talking about gun control, only to find out later that the incident was a knife attack stopped by a cop with a gun.
 
2017-10-06 01:18:36 PM  

gar1013: followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.


Impossible Alex Jones has assured me that Jet Fuel has no effect on steel beams
 
2017-10-06 01:19:10 PM  

Callous: 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.

Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.


Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.
 
2017-10-06 01:19:58 PM  

ZeroPly: dk47: ZeroPly: 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.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.

Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want them to do

You don't like my "hobby"? Here's what you can do - go f*ck yourself. The reason idiots like you don't get anywhere, is because all you do is foam at the mouth in Internet forums.


May I ask approximately how many guns you own?
 
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