Whenever I purchase allergy medicine at the drug store, I feel a little dirty.
“I think I’m allergic to the ocean,” I tell the clerk, as I run my I.D. through the debit card machine. “Whenever I go surfing, I get really sick.”
I don’t have to explain why I’m getting Claritin-D, but I feel compelled. Because the reason I have to go to the pharmacy to get my medicine is because the goverment is suspicious of people who buy anything containing psuedoephedrine — a key ingredient in meth. And Claritin-D contains pesudoephedrine.
So by explaining why I’m buying it, I guess I’m trying to say, “Look, man — I’m not one of those meth people.”
Honest.
The law was called the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which was included in the Patriot Act. Under the law, medications that included psuedoephedrine were to be sold only at pharmacies, not over-the-counter as they once were. The amount of psuedoephedrine one could purchase was to be limited, and buyers had to run their identification through a debit card machine so that records could be checked.
Another words, the government is keeping tabs on how much Clariton-D I purchase.
I certainly don’t have a problem with cutting down on meth. And while I feel a little like a criminal just because I don’t want to sneeze all night, I can understand the logic of tracking psuedoephedrine sales.
The thing that bothers me is this: If the government is keeping track of my purchase of allergy medicine, why can’t the government also track a guy who buys $15,000 worth of high powered guns and ammo in a short time?
Okay, I know why. In fact, everyone knows why. Politicians on both sides fear the NRA’s wrath. So it doesn’t matter how many mass murders we have — in a Colorado movie theater, at a political rally, at a school — our elected officials won’t talk about any sort of restrictions on gun purchases.
But how about this: Since mass murderers aren’t enough to get their attention, what about terrorists? After all, that anti-meth law was part of the Patriot Act, right?
What if a terrorist were to buy $15,000 worth of weapons?
Since 9/11, terrorism concerns have revolved mostly around planes and bombs. But there’s always been the more obvious threat, like what if someone were to take a high-powered gun to a baseball stadium, a school graduation, or a county fair.
Well, hopefully, the FBI and CIA are pretty dialed in on would-be terrorists. Of course, few would suspect a guy like Tim McVeigh.
Or James Holmes, the guy who shot up a theater in Colorado. Nobody suspected him because no one knew about all those purchases he’d made. Had he tried to buy $15,000 worth of Claritin-D, the USDA would have paid him a little visit. Guns, tear gas, protective gear and all that ammo?
Not a concern.
I guess he doesn’t count as a terrorist, though the witnesses I saw on TV sure did experience terror. And the families of the dead.
If we consider him a mass murderer, doesn’t that suggest his guns were weapons of mass destruction?
Say what you will about the 2nd Amendment and hunting and all that, but I think most reasonable people would agree that someone who buys $15,000 worth of weaponry warrants a visit from someone in law enforcement — before he shoots up a theater, not after.
Some pundits are urging us not to make the Colorado tragedy political. And indeed our two presidential candidates sure aren’t. But this isn’t political — it’s common sense.
If we can crack down on meth dealers, we should also crack down on murderers.
No related posts.
10 comments
lerapp
July 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Thank you. That made my afternoon.
Gsan
July 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Let’s not forget about controlling hammers also:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/07/25/2157579/hammer-attack-running-deer-ranch.html
Pat
July 26, 2012 at 5:41 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I’m not sure what the argument is there. But that story demonstrates that a guy with several high-powered guns is clearly way more dangerous than a guy with a hammer.
Man from Moqui
July 24, 2012 at 11:31 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
For the life of me, I can’t understand why even a gun advocate would advocate legally allowing 100-bullet magazines. 100 rounds! 100.
Hank
July 26, 2012 at 4:25 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Because criminalizing a simple box with a spring inside of it, and turning its ownership into a felony treated as severely as rape or assault, does nothing to prevent murder, and does everything to add to the pile of onerous laws criminalizing victimless acts, that have filled our prison system far past its maximum capacity with “criminals” who have harmed nobody, while diverting attention away from real crimes that have real victims. You gun control advocates always talk about “allowing” something as if somehow its natural state is to be banned by the government. No, the natural state of a gun magazine is to be a stamped sheet of metal that has a rudimentary spring inside of it. When you advocate for the use of violent force to imprison the owners of rudimentary metal boxes, YOU are the one who has to explain why you think criminalizing 1800s technology and turning thousands of decent folks into horrible criminals, will benefit the free society we have here in America.
Michael
July 30, 2012 at 10:54 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
I can’t speak for all gun control advocates, but I personally believe what we need now more than ever is a reasonable discussion and coming together of both sides of this issue. There seems to be a reactionary back and forth that accomplishes nothing (“no one should be allowed to own ___” “It’s my constitutional right as an American to own ___”). There has to be a cultural shift before gun restrictions can truly be effective (i.e. you can ban handguns in a city like Chicago, but with countless unscrupulous dealers and various other pathways like going out of state, you can’t limit the supply.)
I don’t hate you for owning guns.
I don’t think you’re an idiot for being upset by the idea that lunatics and criminals could lead to your access to arms being restricted.
I think something you and I could agree on is that there is a delineation between what is reasonable and unreasonable for a civilian to be allowed to own. For example, I doubt you would be comfortable with civilians owning nuclear weapons, because no one person should have access to that much firepower, even someone with a clean record because, after all, every criminal was at one point a law-abiding citizen. I know you are probably tired of hearing the nuclear weapon argument (I am too) but I think it helps define what the issue should be about, which is not “guns vs no guns” but rather “reasonable weaponry vs unreasonable weaponry.” I am personally ok living in a country where no civilian has access to a 100-round magazine, because I cannot see a reasonable use for it, but I respect and understand that there are those who would disagree and I would like to know why. I also can’t identify with the idea having a gun-collection numbering in the double-digits, because to me that is no longer for personal defense/hunting/exercising rights, but more like fetishism in a way that doesn’t truly appreciate the supreme power of a firearm.
So there’s my two-cents, buy what you will with it.
BBTB
July 26, 2012 at 3:52 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Excellent.
Robert
July 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
Why don’t we just have two societies, one with guns and one without? You can live in the one without and the rest of us that choose to live in the one with?
For you to tell me I don’t need that, be it alcohol, tobacco, hard rock, religion etc is what is actually eroding the best of this country. We have been broken up into to many social or race groups, instead of having everyone attempt to conform to America we bent over backwards trying to accommodate to many “religions”, ” cultures” and not we have a fractionated society.
C.R.
July 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
FYI the goverment does track people who purchase multipule firearms within 5 days. Its called an ATF form 3310.4 muli firearm transaction report thats sent in with the background check.
Pat
July 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment
You’re right, C.R., but it didn’t help in Colorado since the shooter ordered his supplies over a period of months, not five consecutve business days.