Perfect. "It should be harder to buy a gun than it is to buy Sudafed."

[Horse with no Name]

Just now on MSNBC.

[LiberalEsto]

1. +10,000,000! nt

[rateyes]

2. if you are buying a gun from a store

it is harder to buy a gun than sudafed

[Horse with no Name]

5. I live in a rural area

and I can tell you that I know VERY few that buy their toys from a store. I think that legitimate SANE gun purchasers probably do go to a store--but I think the batshit crazy gun nuts get their guns elsewhere so it really is a moot point.

[rateyes]

7. Well, the batshit crazy gun nut who just committed the massacre got his guns

from stores. So, the point is not all that moot...considering the fact that no one gets their meth from a store.

[trof]

72. In the south, many gun sales are between individuals.

"Hey Floyd, what would you take for that 12 gauge?"
Maybe it's not just down here?

[Clames]

129. All over the U.S.

Don't trip over yourself now.

[rocktivity]

3. And buying military-grade/assault weapons

should be flat-out impossible.


rocktivity

[rateyes]

8. i agree with that.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. But military grade assault weapons are specifically what the second amendment protects.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What kind of weapons do you think the founders had in mind other than weapons of war? Do you think they were going to go to militia service to secure free states using toys?

[azurnoir]

15. considering what type of firearms were available in 1776

which I believe were muzzle loading muskets, I seriously doubt our founding father had an AR-15 or an M-16 or an AK-47 in mind

[Atypical Liberal]

42. So does this mean that freedom of speech does not extend to telephones or computers?

Does it mean that you aren't secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in your automobile?

[azurnoir]

55. you're comparing apples to oranges n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

106. No, I'm not. You were talking about firearms available in 1776.

You were talking about firearms available in 1776 as if the second amendment only applies to 18th century weapons.

If this is true, than the first amendment does not cover telephones or email.

[Shadowflash]

60. Ok then

Why not tanks? Or nukes? or F-16s then?

I'm sure everybody agrees that there is a limit to the weapons you can own. Even the most hardcore, apocalyptic Militia types. The only question is where is that limit.

[Atypical Liberal]

105. Small arms, not crew-served weaponry.

It is generally accepted that the arms spoken of in the second amendment refer to small arms, not crew-served weaponry.

[Shadowflash]

110. ah..

But, as a lot of gun nuts like to say, That's not what it SAYS.

There is more of a limitation of keeping firearms restricted to trained militia personnel in the second amendment than there is language limiting it to 'crew-served weaponry' yet the gun nuts ignore that.

[Atypical Liberal]

113. If you want to advocate for that, go ahead.

But, as a lot of gun nuts like to say, That's not what it SAYS.

Most people, particularly pro-firearm people, agree that that is what it means. If you want to advocate for a more liberal interpretation of arms, feel free.

There is more of a limitation of keeping firearms restricted to trained militia personnel in the second amendment than there is language limiting it to 'crew-served weaponry' yet the gun nuts ignore that.

There is no restriction at all. The second amendment does not restrict arms possession to militia use. It simply says that militia use is a reason for possessing them.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store."

This does not imply that stores only sell bread, nor that the only reason to go to stores is to buy bread. Only that stores do sell bread, and it is a reason I am going there. Even if it is the only reason I am going right now, it doesn't mean there might be other reasons I might go at some other time.

[Shadowflash]

114. heh.

You just reinforced every word of my last post with your response.

And, no, I am not advocating anything. I'm just point out the absurdity of the argument that the poster above mine used.

[Atypical Liberal]

115. Well I'm glad we agree then. n/t

[A Simple Game]

119. Eighteenth century militia didn't have cannons? Who knew? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

122. Of course they did. And individuals even owned them.

Just as today individuals can own cannons.

But most people consider that the second amendment is primarily about small arms appropriate for infantry use.

There was no expectation that the people would own cannons the way people owned long arms.

[A Simple Game]

125. I think my head is going to start hurting.

So I can own a cannon? I always assumed there was a limit somewhere around 50 caliber. Is there? If so, what is the limit? I assume the reserves and national guard are our present day equivalent of a militia, can I own everything they have?

[Atypical Liberal]

132. Of course you can own a cannon.

I shoot on a competitive shooting team with cannons. It is quite fun. I invite you to peruse Youtube.

A cannon will cost you about $20,000, by the way.

[A Simple Game]

118. There are people in jail because of how they used their freedoms

while on a computer.

And as most telephone companies are private and not government owned, theoretically they could tell you what words you can and can not use while on their phone system.

Searches of cars? That has become a gray area.

[Atypical Liberal]

123. That is another subject.

There are people in jail because of how they used their freedoms while on a computer.

Ask Julian Assange or Bradley Manning.

And as most telephone companies are private and not government owned, theoretically they could tell you what words you can and can not use while on their phone system.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights have never applied to private entities. They are a list of restrictions of the power of the Federal government.

Now if you want to talk about the fact that when you misused your right to keep and bear arms the consequences are more serious than if you misuse your rights to speech, or vote, or whatever, yes, there is no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is serious business. No other right enumerated in the Constitution is about killing people who threaten the security of free states.

[A Simple Game]

127. Yes "That is another subject", one you brought up.

Glad you agree with me.


The US Constitution and Bill of Rights have never applied to private entities. So you agree that Blackwater(or whatever they call themselves now) or any private security firm, could have their arms confiscated?

[Atypical Liberal]

128. Who would be doing the confiscating?

The government cannot confiscate private property without due process of law.

I'm not sure what you are driving at.

You were talking about restrictions on private telephone companies listening in on telephone conversations. The Constitution does not address this kind of issue.

Private communications companies can and do control the kinds of communication that happens on their equipment. For example, the US Constitution does not give you freedom of speech on this internet bulletin board.

[A Simple Game]

134. Sorry I should have read my own post before posting it.

I screwed that one all up.

[Fla Dem]

44. SNAP!! n/t

[Tumbulu]

26. those are for use in a "well regulated militia", not just anyone.

did you not see the "well regulated" part?

[Atypical Liberal]

41. On militias.

First of all, you will note that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that is protected, not the right of militias, nor states.

Secondly, you will note that while service in a well regulated militia is given as a reason for why the people should keep and bear arms, it is not the only reason.

For example, I could say, "I am out of Coke, therefore I am going to the store." This does not imply that I am only going to the store to buy Coke, nor that this is the only reason for going to stores, nor that this is all that stores sell.

Thirdly, "well-regulated" means "well-functioning", not "operating under regulations".

Think of your colon when you say that you are "regular". It doesn't mean your intestines operate by an instruction manual.

[AllyCat]

71. And talking about guns brings us to poop.

Really? A militia is like a colon?

[Atypical Liberal]

109. No, being "regular" is like a colon.

Well-regulated in the context of the second amendment means "well-functioning".

When your militia is well-regulated it's the same thing as if your colon is well-regulated. Both are well-functioning.

[bongbong]

136. Lie

> Well-regulated in the context of the second amendment means "well-functioning".

Lie. See Federalist Paper #29 for the truth (that gun-relgionists hate)

[Atypical Liberal]

140. I am quite familiar with Federalist 29.

Perhaps you can quote me the part you are referring to?

[bongbong]

142. LOL

The part that defines "well-regulated" as "trained like an army".

[Atypical Liberal]

144. Feel free to provide a quote, if you can be bothered. n/t

[bongbong]

145. Sheesh

I know gun-relgionists only like to read posts about how fast & how many people a particular gun can kill, but sheesh! You guys need to do a little more research on the laws that you rant about.

From F.P. 29:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."

IOW, "trained like an army", and under the control of the central authorities ("Big Evil Gubmint" to right-wingers & gun-relgionists)

Now maybe gun-relgionists will understand the 2nd Amendment better.

[Atypical Liberal]

146. Not under the control of.

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

Not under the control of, but at the disposal of.

The militias were to be made up of men from their respective states and led by officers from those states. They were counters to federal power, not adjuncts to it.

But I concede that that passage might indicate a different connotation for "well-regulated" than meaning well-functioning.

But it may not, either. Well-regulated could mean well-disciplined from the context provided, also.

There is a reason why troops from a nation's standing army were called "regulars" at the time. It's not because they were sticklers for rules.

[bongbong]

147. LOL at the spin!

> Not under the control of, but at the disposal of.

I think you MIGHT be able to fit a Higgs Boson in between those two definitions, but it would be a tight fit.



> But it may not, either. Well-regulated could mean well-disciplined from the context provided, also.

Yeah, and if the pope was German he'd still be the pope.



The spinning is reaching light-speed. The Founders' graves are a big mess from THEIR spinning (at hearing how the NRA has denigrated the Constitution)

[A Simple Game]

120. Wow, it's too bad they didn't have your vocabulary, there would have

been no mis-understanding of the 2nd amendment.

Oh, while you're at it, does "the people" mean as a whole, or singular.

[Atypical Liberal]

121. Like all rights, it applies to individuals.

Oh, while you're at it, does "the people" mean as a whole, or singular.

There is no right that can be exercised by a collective that cannot also be exercised by individuals.

Also, the Supreme Court has held, unanimously, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

[A Simple Game]

124. It does get confusing doesn't it. Now I always assumed a word like

militia would be plural. A one person militia just seems stupid, would you agree? Of course I could be wrong, I always thought people was kind of plural for person.

So with you knowing the true meanings of all the words in the 2nd amendment, you would say that when they wrote "the people" they really meant "a person"? But what do I know, I would have left off the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" myself. Now wouldn't that have simplified it a whole lot?

So this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Should actually be this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a person to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or better yet my version:
The right of a person to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Gosh those people writing the amendments could have used some english lessons, you would have thought that they would have hired someone to help them with the language. And they were supposed to be the smart ones!

[Atypical Liberal]

131. Again, there is no right that the collective can exercise that inviduals cannot also exercise.

If several people can be in a militia, an individual can also be in a militia.

If none of the people are armed, none of them can be in the militia. In order for them to be in a militia, they must all be armed, or at least, some substantial number of the people must be armed. But if no one is armed, there can be no militia, so clearly at least one person must be armed.

But the second amendment does not say that the only reason for keeping and bearing arms is for service in a militia. It simply says that service in a militia is one of the reasons to keep and bear arms.

It is as if I said, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store." This does not imply that the only reason I ever go to stores is to buy bread, nor does it imply that stores only sell bread.

Let us look at the rest of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that individuals do not also have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances? Does it mean that individuals do not have freedom of religion? Or freedom of speech?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does this mean that individuals are not secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? Does it mean that individuals do not need probable cause to have warrants issued against them?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Does this mean that certain rights can be denied or disparaged to any individual?

Of course not. In every single case in the Bill of Rights, what protections are enumerated for people collectively can also be enjoyed individually. If not, it would not be a right, would it?

What kind of right could possibly be enjoyed if you could only enjoy it with two or more people? How could one possibly be free if their freedom depended on being with other like-minded people?

[soccer1]

43. Exactly....well regulated.....

let's try to define that.....what did the founders mean by "well regulated" and what does that mean for a citizen militia in modern America?

[rocktivity]

34. I undertand why members of a MILITIA need weapons of war

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

but not why CIVILIANS do.

Civilians are allowed to own radio-controlled airplanes, but not radio-controlled drones. I'm not anti-gun, but there needs to be a similiar "line" drawn as far as what kinds of firearms civilians can own.


rocktivity

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Because the civilians are the ultimate repository of freedom.

I undertand why members of a MILITIA needs weapons of war But not why CIVILIANS do.

Because the civilians were intended to BE the militia.

But I have no doubt this is why the right to keep and bear arms was specifically enumerated to the people, and not to the militias, nor the states. If the militias were corrupted or disbanded (as they were), the power would still reside in the hands of the people.

Civilians are allowed to own radio-controlled airplanes, but not radio-controlled drones.

What's the difference?

[wandy]

63. Civilians are allowed to own radio-controlled airplanes, but not radio-controlled drones.

Thats because RC Airplains are small, harmless and cannot launch rckets.....

See! Small, harmless and cannot launch rckets.

[Angleae]

70. The militia is comprised of civilians

That's why it's called the militia instead of the army

PS: RC drones = RC airplanes. The terms are interchangeable, it's just a matter of price and capability. At some point the FAA gets involved if the plane can go above a certain altitude and requires you to have a pilots license.

[obamanut2012]

79. A militia IS civilians

It is not a military unit, it is a civilian unit.

[Art_from_Ark]

95. Yes and no

10 USC § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Cooley Hurd]

108. Good luck with that assault weapon vs an F-35...

[Atypical Liberal]

112. The Iraqis seem to have had good luck.

In spite of technological superiority, the United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has undertaken in the last 65 years.

[DainBramaged]

130. Muzzle loaders were assault weapons? Wow, my remembrance was that the militia

used the same guns they used to put food on their families.......


Google is your friend when you make outlandish statements





http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

Since the Brown Bess was a muzzleloading weapon, it took longer to load than a breechloading weapon. Also, the smoothbore barrel of the Brown Bess only made it accurate to around 75 yards or so, whereas rifled barrels were accurate over much longer ranges. Rifles had been used by some British troops, as early as 1776, but it was the change in tactics that had a lot to do with making the Brown Bess obsolete. It was no longer considered good practice to line up soldiers 50 yards away from the enemy and fire upon them, hoping to hit someone. The newer tactics called for better marksmanship and therefore a more accurate and longer ranged weapon. Hence the British military stopped using the Brown Bess by 1838. However it continued to be in use by other troops around the world for many more years and saw extensive use in India for years to come.

[Atypical Liberal]

133. Yes, muzzle loaders were assault weapons.

Smoothbore, flintlock muzzle loaders were the state-of-the-art military weapon of the day.

And yes, they were functionally identical to the weapons that people hunted with.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the second amendment is about killing people, not hunting, and so protects arms specifically for killing people, not hunting.

[DainBramaged]

135. Wow, I've seen reaches in my lifetime but yours takes the cake

you find me ANYWHERE in the writings of ANY of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution where they reference assault rifles and I'll put you on ignore.


Deal?

[Atypical Liberal]

139. What kind of arms do you think they were talking about?

you find me ANYWHERE in the writings of ANY of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution where they reference assault rifles and I'll put you on ignore.

I can't believe someone would write something like this.

The idea of "assault rifles" did not exist in 1776, any more than the idea of computers or telephones did.

There were sporting arms and military arms.

The second amendment is about military arms, because it is about securing free states. There is only one thing you would be using arms in such a use for, and that is warfare.

The citizens were intended to keep and bear military arms, so that they could function as the military, or at least counter federal military power.

The second amendment is about military arms.

[DainBramaged]

141. Well Dave, if you had seen some of the comments about assault rifles this weekend....

I'm very familiar with the Revolutionary war the second amendment, and the propaganda the NRA puts out, so with that I'll bid you adieu. I'm done fighting, the gun nuts won.


Have a fun time here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. It already is

An AR-15 or equivalent is not the same as an M-16 or M-4

[Flatulo]

24. The AR-15 isn't a military-grade weapon.

It's the the civilian version of the M-16. It's a semi-automatic rifle. You have to pull the trigger for each round.

The M-16 is the fully automatic military version. You can empty the magazine with one trigger pull, or fire a burst of three rounds, or fire in semi-auto mode, like the AR-15.

The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same round and can also accept 30 round magazines, but has a wooden stock and looks like an ordinary rifle. The AR-15 looks just like the M-16, which is to say, scary.

Not that any of this is consolation to the dead and wounded, but propagating myths doesn't do much good either.

[rocktivity]

30. Perhaps I should have said "Military-STYLE/assault weapons."

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:08 PM - Edit history (2)

That is to say, what does a civilian need with such weapons if not for military-style assaults?

Civilians aren't allowed to have drone missiles. While should they be allowed to have semi-automatic rifles?


rocktivity

[Flatulo]

45. I wish I knew the answer. I have a few guns, and I keep them locked

in a stout safe. I believe in the right to keep firearms, but I don't know where to draw the line. I had an AR-15 a long time ago, but they're a huge pain in the ass to clean, and there's not many places where you can safely shoot them. The round they fire is pretty small (.223 inches) but they have a humdinger of a muzzle velocity, and they do mind-boggling tissue damage (which is exactly what they're designed to do). I sold mine years ago. If you get hit by one of these anywhere, your life is ruined even if you survive.

The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the Federal government and the States may regulate the *types* of firearms we may own, so you can't expect to own a tank or bazooka.

On the other hand, we've been spectacularly unsuccessful at banning things that people want (alcohol and drugs come to mind). I think banning them outright would create higher demand (and prices), with the expected criminality to follow, for the ones in existence.

I also think that madmen would just resort to simpler but equally effective methods of wreaking mayhem. Bombs, incendiaries, driving a car into a crowd, a quiver full of muskets, etc.

The root problem is that our society seems to excel at creating these isolated loners who seek vengeance on the rest of society. We cherish our privacy, so no one is comfortable alerting the authorities that an acquaintance is acting scary, and even if they did, the authorities couldn't do fuck-all anyway.

[JeepJK556]

66. Military Style?

You mean guns that simply LOOK like military guns?

[rocktivity]

68. Guns that are meant to look and act like they're for military/mass assault purposes

Handguns and hunting rifles I'm cool with. But what does a civilian need with a weapon that can use a 100-round drum?


rocktivity

[4th law of robotics]

75. The appearance makes no difference

and "act like".

So they can be used to kill?

Ok so only nerf guns then?

[Kaleva]

82. You may have more of an issue with magazine capacity then with the gun itself.

Some, maybe most, of the weapons that can take a high capacity magazine such as you describe can also accept a 5 or 10 round mag.

[Kaleva]

80. Appearance has nothing to do with how lethal a weapon can be.

Your comment:

"While should they be allowed to have semi-automatic rifles? "

Now if one bases a ban on how a weapon functions, it would be effective. The AWB that was in effect for 10 years was a failure because it was based primarily on the appearance of a gun.

[rocktivity]

84. "Now if one bases a ban on how a weapon functions, it would be effective."

Banning them based on how tasteless they are would be effective, too!




rocktivity

[HereSince1628]

104. I think there are some confusions about this military grade thing...

Semi-automatic vs automatic is NOT actually a differentiation that makes a weapon suitable for military use. But, semi-automatic--one round fired per trigger squeeze--is a characteristic required for general sale of a weapon to civilians in the US.

An example of a semi-automatic military grade weapon is the M82 50 caliber. It it is a military semi-automatic weapon used by US forces in sw Asia. It is powerful enough to be considered an 'anti-material' weapon.

It seems that the adoption and use of a weapon by a military is the primary distinction of military vs non-military grade weapon rather than selective automatic vs semi-automatic.

Among some other features, the distinction between the terms assault rifles (a category used to describe some military weapons) and assault weapons (as defined by the assault weapons ban) is the presence of selective automatic fire capability found in assault rifles that is absent in assault weapons.

An assault rifle can be said to be a military grade weapon in the US civilian because automatic fire capability is not generally available to civilians. Yet, semi-automatic weapons may have military and/or civilian use.

[ileus]

107. Maybe a handful are true mil-spec....the rest just cheap semiauto clones.

[4th law of robotics]

74. Military grade

IE one that fires a projectile potentially fast enough to cause serious bodily harm, or even death.

[Ter]

99. It already is

Those were not military-grade.

[rateyes]

4. thats not to say that i dont want to make it even harder to buy guns

because i do

[Richard D]

6. I think . . .

"It's easier to buy a gun than to buy sudafed." has more punch.

[SheilaT]

9. Bingo.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. It should be easy to buy either one.

I'm sick and tired of not being able to buy effective cold medicines because of this insane "War on Drugs".

It should be just as easy to buy either one.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. They couldn't keep it on the shelf.

Meth guys were taking them all.

Seriously. The guy would go to the checkout at Walgreens with 60 boxes of every brand.

[TBF]

35. Which is fine - I don't mind asking the pharmacist BUT

I cannot buy 12-hour Zyrtec-D and take it at the recommended dosage because Texas thinks it's too much for me to buy in one month. That is following the package's instructions - one pill each 12-hours. So I have to find someone else to buy it for me or I can't breathe as well. What I have been doing is taking it in the morning, and then skipping it in the evening when it seems that I'm having a pretty good day. It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking I should make an allergist appointment (which will cost me at least $50) to see if they can still write scripts for it. Then at least I'd have the recommended dosage and could breathe in Houston's spring/summer. It is easier to buy alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and guns that it is to buy an over the counter allergy medication at recommended dosage in Texas. THAT is insane.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. Don't most of those things say you shouldn't take them longer than two weeks?

[TBF]

40. Are you serious?

Breathing for two weeks is good enough for you? After that I guess you just stop right.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. Most over the counter drugs warn that you should see your doctor if the condition persists.

Otherwise you can develop side effects or a dependency.

I know someone who had that happen with nasal spray and someone else who did that with a sleep aid.

[Ms. Toad]

83. Many allergists tell their patients to take pseudoephedrine

Both my spouse and daughter take them at the direction of their allergists. One during ragweed season, the other year round.

It was a darn good thing I don't need it personally, because when this nonsense started my daughter was not yet 18 and not able to buy it for herself, and at least one of the federal or state laws prohibited purchasing an additional quota for someone else (even a minor child). My allotment had to be purchased for my daughter, and my spouse needed her full allotment. Had I needed any for myself, I would have been out of luck - or would have had to break the law limiting the quantity I could purchase. It would have been fairly easy to do so by going to different stores - but I would have broken both the quantity law, and federal perjury laws - and as someone who holds two state licenses that is not cool.

I think perhaps you have not dealt with the reality of severe allergies, and a bit of time spent with someone who has them might give you a reality check on how bad these laws are.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. It's times like this I wish we had Medicare for All

With prescriptions and common over the counter stuff covered for chronic care.

[TBF]

88. My allergies have been persistent for most of my life -

and I've seen many allergists along with trying many different antihistamines. I took Claritin D for years before it was over the counter - diagnosed and prescribed by an allergist. Allergy shots are the main way they make their money, and I've never gotten to the point on shots that I've been able to give up the antihistamines so it is just extra money and time to get the shots. Granted folks who have seasonal allergies are not going to care if they can't get recommended dosage, but for those who have allergies all of the time it makes a difference.

Also I understand that this is not the most pressing problem we face in this country, and it is not going to affect that many people (just those with chronic rhinitis) but the topic sets me off because it does seem pretty damned crazy that we have trouble buying common medications but others are obtaining machine guns on a whim.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. I know a woman in Vegas who suffers from desert pollen

I've seen the electron microscope scans of that stuff. Might as well be breathing cactus plants. It's all spikes.

She has pretty nasty reactions including watering eyes, congestion, raw throat, coughing up sometimes bloody phlegm and even visible swelling in her neck. It's only in the spring when she has a problem and she uses a prescription but I don't remember which one and it's only semi-effective.

[TBF]

100. I'm sure it's miserable -

for me it is allergies to things like mold, grass, pollen. Last summer was absolutely amazing for me because of the drought in our area - with no rain there was no mold (as opposed to this year with the fungi growing everywhere). I took normal Zyrtec all summer and didn't need the Sudafed. While everyone else was praying for rain I was happy as a clam.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

102. I'm like a magnet for blood sucking insects.

Deer flies, mosquitoes, no-see-ums, fleas.

Everyone else is walking along in the woods and I'm getting eaten alive.

I've been told it's because I taste good.

That makes ya kinda nervous when swimming in the ocean.

[eridani]

54. WA got so nutz that a prescription was my only option

Thank heavens I'm on Medicare now.

[TBF]

89. That doesn't surprise me.

I've done some searching on-line and found out I am not the only person that has had problems with buying their Sudafed in Texas - and I'm sure there could be other states that are just as bad or worse. I really don't mind that they monitor it and ask for my ID, but I mind that I can't even get the recommended dosage when I'm more than willing to give them my info.

But the trolls from NRA do not care about that - they are busy with their assignment this weekend.

[dionysus]

12. i bought a rifle at a sporting goods store last year for a collectors item. it took an hour for them

to run a background check. it's the illegal sales that are the problem.

or, you could be an evil person trying to by a gun, but if you had never been caught for a crime before, and weren't flagged in the system, there's no way for anyone to know your intent on buying it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. How about slowing production?

OMG!!! That would mean the companies couldn't report a higher profit!!!

It's the end of the world!!!!

(arm yerselves)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. All that would do is raise prices

An leave quality firearms only affordable by the rich.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. You mean some punk ass kid couldn't afford them?

Poor baby....

[derby378]

16. Isn't it already?

Nice talking point, but every gun I've ever purchased required at least a Form 4473 and a background check. Buying a Sudafed meant showing my driver's license to the pharmacist.

This is a non-starter because the condition already exists.

[obamanut2012]

81. Me too

[HopeHoops]

17. FUCK! I can't even buy boric acid at the drug store anymore - apparently it's used for drugs.

I don't have a fucking clue how you would use it as a drug, but CVS isn't allowed (by corporate) to even stock it now - even behind the counter. The only two uses for it I know of is as an eye wash and for killing cockroaches and ants (No Roach is nothing more than boric acid).

[mzteris]

21. crap - I used to use that all the time.

It's good for ants, too.

And certain - ah - feminine hygiene problem issues. (Necessary before you could buy the necessary treatment OTC without a dr's prescription. It would still be way cheaper, though.)

[HopeHoops]

27. Yeah, and after the "bath salts" thing hit the news, Dollar Tree pulled the Epsom salts.

THEY AREN'T EVEN RELATED! Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate. There's no connection to the stuff that's used as a drug. Knee-jerk reaction. Fortunately, I can still get them at the pharmacies. There's nothing better for a hot bath.

[mzteris]

32. We live on Epsom salts around here.

I love a good soak.

But the boys use it for their various activity related injuries (dance and/or football).

[HopeHoops]

36. I get the big bags. My wife's a 3rd degree black belt, all three daughters are 2nd degree.

I've got a shattered spine. We go through the stuff.

[Irishonly]

31. And fleas

The powder mixed with salt, sprinkled on the carpet, then vacuumed gets rid of the nasty things. I didn't know you couldn't get any until I was trying to help my neighbor get rid of the things.

[mzteris]

33. Yeah. I forgot about that. n/t

[Posteritatis]

57. There's places that regulate *flasks* at this point. It's absurd. (nt)

[hughee99]

19. Yes, we need to make it easier to buy cold/allergy medication.

[mzteris]

25. We need better

education, poverty programs, mental health treatment (free), jobs, training, birth control, parenting classes, drug treatment . . . oh - and drug decriminalization - treatment and education - not incarceration.

(Then again most meth heads are usually too far gone to help. You have to get 'em before they're addicted.)

[hughee99]

29. +1000

[aikoaiko]

22. For the most part it is. Does this really resonate with you?

Now some may say "what about private sales?"

As far as I know it is not illegal for me to buy Sudafed and give it to someone else for money or for free?

edited to add: Oh you heard this on the news. Now I understand why you think it is a good talking point.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. If you charge for the Sudafed, you have definitely committed a crime. n/t

[hack89]

23. So there are background checks and waiting periods for Sudafed? Didn't know that. nt

[TBF]

39. If there were I could actually get the medication I need -

as it is now if you buy 12-hour Zyrtec D and take it as the package recommends - one tablet each 12 hours - you will not be able to keep buying it to take it daily because Texas says it is too much Sudafed in one month. When you go to the website to check how many grams of Sudafed you have actually purchased it is never working (in my experience) - all I get is error messages.

It is definitely easier to buy a gun in Texas than it is to take Zyrtec D for your allergies if you want to actually breathe (ie take the daily recommended dosage).

[hack89]

47. So it is not that it is too easy to buy guns but that it is too hard to buy Sudafed.

I can accept that.

[TBF]

51. Yes. I'm not a fan of guns and don't want one myself

but I'm sure others feel the same about Sudafed. If you all can have your guns I should be able to have my allergy medicine. They are both legal products.

[hack89]

53. Cool. nt

[obamanut2012]

64. You can take it daily -- I do

And it meets the Federal regs on it.

[TouchOfGray]

28. What I find interesting is that many of the same people

who point out the futility of the "War on Drugs" expect somehow that a "War on Guns" would achieve any better results. Making illegal, or banning something, only succeeds in creating a larger uncontrollable "black market" with the increase in criminal activity such as smuggling and distribution of whatever product is being banned.

At least the legal sale of guns is somewhat regulated and taxed now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. Bingo! n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

96. Where has that happened with the "War on Guns"?

I don't recall any place that has created a larger uncontrollable black market with the increase in criminal activity such as smuggling and distribution with guns.


I'm in Massachusetts and we have stricter gun control laws than a lot of places in the us and I don't see any of this "larger uncontrollable market" you speak of. Guns aren't much of an issue here.

I just hope the NRA doesn't ruin my state as they have ruined many others.

[TouchOfGray]

116. I'll take you at your word as regards the gun market in your state

I'm sure you must be in a position to know what the current activity is and what the relative unavailability of guns must be because of your stricter laws.

I didn't realize that Massachusetts had solved the gun violence problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. Or how about it should be easier to buy Sudafed than a gun? Using one bad, ineffective idea to

justify another bad, ineffective idea will probably make a bad situation worse.

[Loge23]

52. or marijuana for that matter. (eom)

[QUALITYCONTRoll]

56. The 28th

The 28th amendment ...in order to became a civilized nation it is the right of the people to be secure in their persons and live free from guns and munition.....

[DrewFlorida]

58. True that!

[DrewFlorida]

61. If the extreme right had their way, guns and ammo would be available in vending machines.

Ohh, sorry, I don't want to give them any ideas.

[rocktivity]

69. Too late

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=995421


rocktivity

[obamanut2012]

62. It is

[bluestateguy]

65. I got a better idea: make it easier to buy Sudafed and leave the guns alone

I shouldn't have to give the grocery store my name and address to buy cold medicine.

[jp11]

67. If this comparison were made at similar venues then it is

harder to buy a gun than it is to buy Sudafed.

Go into any business that sells sudafed and it will be easier to get than a gun from a business that sells them.

Now if you want to talk about some craigslist meetup or gunshow then your comparison isn't a grocery store with a pharmacy it's a back alley or the like.

You can't make a logical argument comparing apples to oranges.

[4th law of robotics]

73. It should be harder to vote than buy Sudafed

makes as much sense.

[Horse with no Name]

76. So...by this statement...you are advocating for Voter ID?

Just want to get this straight.

And if THAT is what you are implying...perhaps you took a wrong turn on your way in?

[4th law of robotics]

77. Pointing out the silliness of this notion

comparing two very separate issues.

Besides which it *is* harder to buy a gun legally than to buy sudafed.

So it's based on a false equivalence and false information. Pretty impressive.

[Ruby the Liberal]

78. Interesting.

[JoePhilly]

85. Make all guns pink, and shaped exactly like a penis.

You can have as many as you want.

So many problems gets solved.

Guys with little dicks have a big penis they can play with.

If some one pulls out a big penis in a store, everyone will know exactly what it is, and run.

[rocktivity]

87. Something along these lines?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=995421


rockivity

[klook]

98. Very good

"You can have as many penises as you want" is a pretty good selling point.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

86. Sudafed is behind a glass case with a lock

at least in the CVS in our town.

[StateApparatus]

90. Amen!

Are you kidding me?!? If I wanted to roll my shopping cart up and buy 1000 boxes of shotgun shell, no problem. Buy two boxes of Claritin-D? HELL NO! Think of the children! People make drugs with that! Here's a news flash people: the meth-heads are still making meth. The only thing that has changed is that I barely have access to the medication I need.

I have an idea: every single gun sale in the country requires a background check and fingerprinting. Ballistic information is gathered and kept with the sale info. You may have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to keep your weapons secret and anonymous.

[GarroHorus]

93. Since it already is, what's the point?

[SunSeeker]

94. Guns should come with pink slips just like cars.

Since so many guns are sold as used through private parties, the state should keep track of who owns a particular gun like it does with cars. And, if you sell a gun and don't turn in a notice of transfer of ownership, you should be civilly liable for any damage/injuries done by that gun. Just like if you sell your car and don't turn in a notice of transfer of ownership with the Department of Motor Vehicles (you're still liable for its parking tickets, etc. until you do so).

It should be at least as hard to buy a gun as it is to buy a car.

Yes, I know the Supreme Court said owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right and owning a car is not. Fine. Make getting a gun as hard as it is to get an abortion...in Mississippi.

[IdaBriggs]

97. Agreed! nt

[klook]

117. Great suggestion. Law-abiding gun owners should have no problem with this. (n/t)

[Canuckistanian]

101. Yeah, why aren't people declaring their FREEDOM to buy as much Sudafed as they want?

And decrying the statist boot of tyranny on their throats?

[KamaAina]

137. Because Sudafed does not work particularly well as a penis extension

[Canuckistanian]

143. LOL

Good one, centurion.

[TheKentuckian]

148. I have. Repeatedly and I almost never use Sudafed. In fact, I vehemently oppose not only

all forms of drug prohibition but all vice laws in general.

[Marrah_G]

103. That is a very eye opening sentence- I agree completely.

[Honeycombe8]

111. I'm pissed @ the Sudafed-NyQuil thing. It's getting very hard to find the medicine that works for me

I go from store to store, with no luck. The closest I've come in the last couple of years is a generic brand of NyQuil at Walgreens, in a flavor I don't like.

This is ridiculous!

[get the red out]

126. Definitely!!!!!

That's very rational. Too bad the NRA prohibits rational within the boundaries of the USA.

[KamaAina]

138. "Get down! He's got Sudafed!"