The problem with ephedra is that because it’s classified as a fucking “Dietary Supplement” - thank you, Orrin Hatch - the burden of proof is on the FDA to show that it’s risks outweigh the benefits , not on the company to show that its benefits outweigh its risks (like things regulated as drugs). It has to cause a lot of damage before the FDA can pull it.
I suppose if it was marketed as “warning, will probably kill you, but knock yourself out” I wouldn’t mind. That’s not the case; it’s sold as “HAPPY FUN POWER AID” right next to the cigarette lighters in convenience stores, and there’s very little out there in the way of actual testing to see what it does do to you, beyond the above FDA statistics.
You can probably construct an “intended use” argument - no one uses ephedra for recreational purposes, so it shouldn’t have the weak standards for that class of product applied to it. It’s intended use is always weight loss or getting in shape or whatever, where the risks are not even remotely worth the benefits.
The notion that any physical attack upon you or your property enables a lawful killing on your part is the primary motivation for the purchase and use of firearms by non-criminals. The kind of thinking that follows the theft of a toaster with a killing (all the while the killer thinking he is dispensing “justice”) makes me sick.
A better idea than giving everyone guns for protection against guns (see the problem?) is to give noone guns and promote other systems of defense (restraining/communicative).
Guns are a holdover from the frontier days when they WERE needed. Stop and smell the 21st century, people.
Jesus Brian, we all already know the Standard Response to this. “But if we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns. You’re leaving honest citizens defenseless!” Your throwaway line about frontier days doesn’t answer the Standard Response.
Let’s just assume someone has already made the Response, and move right along to “Why is it OK to disarm honest people, while leaving dishonest ones armed?”
Jesus Brian, we all already know the Standard Response to this. “But if we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns. You’re leaving honest citizens defenseless!” Your throwaway line about frontier days doesn’t answer the Standard Response.[/quote]
“promote other systems of defense (restraining/communicative)”
For starters, very few crimes are life-threatening ones, and of the few that are very few are crimes against non-criminals. The idea of the criminal with a gun attacking a non-criminal whose only hope is to have a gun AND be quicker on the draw so to speak is 99% Myth. A popular myth for sure.
Sociopathic and vigilantic tendencies aside (both of which abound in the American spirit), the preferred solution even in a life-threatening case should be to stop and bring to justice the attacker rather than kill the attacker. Guns are very poor at the “stop and bring to justice” part.
And if you’ve taken even a cursory glance at the humans of today, their idea of “life-threatening” ranges anywhere from a bazooka pointed at them to someone rearending them at a stoplight. I’m not ready to entrust a proper interpretation of “life-threatening” to the average gun-wielding joe.
If guns are banned, then criminals better make sure they aren’t caught. Carrying a gun would make for a much stiffer penalty than petty crimes. Maybe 10 years minimum for gun possession.
Guns would be easier than drugs to police, much easier.
If guns were banned, the market would dictate that other types of weapons would be demanded and thus supplied. I like the idea of shock systems like tazers… I’m sure some enterprising company would come up with some nice idea for a restraining weapon IF the market would open up by means of banning guns.
By “communicative” I mean near-instant communication to something like 911… a beeper with a short code needed to engage (to avoid mistaken calls) and a tracking system built in so that if the caller cannot speak the authorities know the location and can get there ASAP.
The basic idea is to move away from people killing people while maintaining the ability of people to defend themselves, their families, their homes, etc., even with the use of weapons.
I’m not sure I trust an “honest” person who feels the need to have a gun, so your designation is a bit suspect. Its not like humans have some dual nature whereby they are either “honest” or “dishonest”.
The idea of course is a total ban on non-governmental possession of firearms. Mere possession of a firearm is a serious crime and the use of a firearm in a crime is a capital offense. Non-governmental gun dealership is a severe crime.
The production of firearms is a much more obvious process than the production of illegal drugs, so it would be difficult to keep domestic production a secret. An obvious concern is gun smuggling, but guns due to their size and X-ray-vulnerable components are much harder to smuggle than drugs.
The idea of a banning of guns leading to a swarm of criminals running unchecked through the streets while helpless law-abiding citizens sit cowering in their locked-up homes or lie in pools of blood after being gunned down in the street is, well, just another fun myth of the oh-so-advanced technologically-savvy American People.
Its too bad the American People aren’t intelligence-savvy. Maybe next century.
Brian, it’d be opposed by a lot of intelligent persons too, who agree with the constitution and think that a government monopoly on gun ownership is a bad idea.
They didn’t have cool things like tazers back then, it made a certain degree of sense especially within a mindset of paranoia about governmental power and antipathy. If you didn’t have a gun you were wielding your pitchfork in as menacing a fashion as possible, earning the mocking laughter of small children.
There would be just as many laws restricting governmental use of firearms as there would civilian use. If the government commits a crime involving a firearm, it is also severe. The laws would be made public of course, so governments can be brought to trial as easily as individual citizens.
Times change, and the laws have to change with it.
I can see it now. A president refuses to step down from office after a year of horrific national events (terrorist attacks using biological/chemical weapons, nuclear power plants bombed, the golden gate bridge collapsed, etc.), and the populace will just charge a fortified D.C. with tazers. Granted, if such a president maintains the loyalty of just a few armored divisions the populace would have a helluva tough time dislodging his loyalist supporters, but at least we could pick them off with rifles from a distance without having to charge machine gun nests with tazers in hand.
There would be just as many laws restricting governmental use of firearms as there would civilian use. If the government commits a crime involving a firearm, it is also severe. The laws would be made public of course, so governments can be brought to trial as easily as individual citizens.
Yep, and those with power always admit when they acted wrongly and embrace their due punishment. Always. Power doesn’t corrupt; it ensures that those who wield it act responsibly, and that they are always morally responsible was watch dogs of their own behavior.
Times change, and the laws have to change with it.
Your right, big Bri. Fuck our civil rights. After 9/11, we need more laws like the Patriot Act. Times have changed, and our government must monitor our every move, physical or financial, to ensure our safety. God bless GW as Jehovah continues to whisper His will into our beloved president’s ears. And may GW’s urine soak deep into that blackest of all amendments to our Constitution. The times have changed!
LOL… if we work hard enough we can get ALL the American Myths in one place! An ammo stockpile so to speak.
Right, exactly… the president would go nutso and end democracy in one fell swoop, the army would agree to his continued “leadership” and noble patriotic Americans would turn to their Magnum 22s and hopefully AK-47s to protect themselves and eventually launch an all-scale attack on Washington while government cleaners scour the streets looking for stragglers. O… K. Americans… god bless those little dickens.
I think of NRA propaganda as a joke… apparently not all of us do.
They aren’t watchdogs of their own behavior… the lawsuits would be brought by private citizens or groups of citizens or government agencies. Since everyone has access to the law, anyone who has knowledge of governmental wrongdoing can bring a lawsuit.
Exactly. The only thing giving you civil rights is your handgun. The NRA is the caretaker of the American Way! And so you shout “For Freedom!” as you and a group of Freedom Fighters storm the White House, running through mortar shells and machine gun fire in a valiant effort to save the United States from the evil forces of oppression and power-mad dictators.
The Holy Handgun. Defender of Freedom, Threat to wannabe Evil Dictators, Ensurer of Democracy.
America. Where truth is always stranger than fiction.
Someone will one day cross the American version of the Rubicon. It is an inevitability. And the right to keep and bear arms was given for fear of a standing, professional army, though I personally believe its intended connotations were more for civilian militia than individualistic rights.
And just for the record, I’ve never owned a gun. But I love an absolute fucking–and quite naive–loon trying to paint me as the demented one.
Really? I think Koontz is angling in that very direction. After all, who needs to police the police when the police will police themselves in Koontz’s Manichean world wherein only criminals need or want guns.
Really? I think Koontz is angling in that very direction. After all, who needs to police the police when the police will police themselves in Koontz’s Manichean world wherein only criminals need or want guns.[/quote]
You are so far off the deep end now there is no going back. You might as well go hang out with the militia types in whatever part of the country you call home. Or start your own group if one isn’t close by.
Okay, now you’re saying that citizens keep guns in order to keep the POLICE in check? First it was the national government and now its the police. I suppose soon enough it will be your next door neighbor.
How exactly does someone police the police now? Do they go down to the local precinct, brandish their gun so the police are properly cowed, and call for a report on the latest police shenanigans?
You must be so used to handling your gun that all the blood has moved away from your brain.
I know, I know… don’t tell me. The police, the national government, and maybe your next door neighbor are getting super-excited about what I am proposing and the millisecond your gun (which you will be buying once you hear of my proposal being enacted, to defend yourself) is extracted from your clenching and distraught fingers they will rampage toward your home with an arsenal of firearms and finance the ammunition industry to such an extent that your funeral is not just closed casket, its no casket.
And you’ll leave a note in a secure safe that when opened says “I told you so”. And I will weep bitter tears of agony at my tragic actions that resulted in your demise.
Please allow me to apologize in advance. Shall I mail my apology to Montana or to Michigan? The apology will be from “Naive Loon” addressed to “Wise Sage”. This will also have the effect of putting in a good word for you with your brothers in arms.
You know, if you were just half as funny as you think you are, we’d never get a good argument in on this board - everyone would be too busy repairing the splits in their sides.
