>>>>Sorry, I must disagree with your 'STUPID STUPID STUPID'. No, it's not a stupid thing to say - but y'all don't seem to get the whole 'why should I be punished for the idiocy/illegality of the few' argument.
>>>>
>>>>Case in point. because some decongestants could be used (in large enough amounts) to produce meth, I now have to go to the pharmacy and have my driver's license recorded because I live in the middle of the allergy capitol of the world and I like to breathe on occasion. And because there are two of us (my husband and I) who are silly enough to enjoy that whole breathing thing, we can go through a 10-count box of decongestants fairly quickly (husband takes normal dose, I take 1/2 dose). And while I can get 2 10-counts, I can't purchase 2 20-count boxes BECAUSE I MIGHT BE MAKING METH. Or so the logic goes. Nor can I purchase 2 10-count boxes more than every two weeks.
>>>>
>>>>Never mind that serious meth-cookers don't bother with freakin' decongestants as a base. But I still have to have my data recorded like I was trying to buy morphine.
>>>>
>>>>So, is THAT regulation keeping the amount of meth on the streets down? Not hardly.
>>>>
>>>>And that's our point. There are already reams and reams of laws out there controlling ownership/sale/purchase of guns that law-abiding citizens have to deal with every time we want to purchase a gun. And people who are looking for a gun for ILLEGAL purposes aren't going to abide by these laws because they don't want a paper trail. So why create more for them to ignore and to frustrate people like me?
>>>
>>>So according to your logic there should be no laws against meth? I mean if you have these laws they're just going to break them.
>>
>>And according to your logic, there should be so many MORE laws against meth that in order to purchase ANY decongestants, I will have to submit to a background check, have 3 doctors verify that, yes I do indeed need them, leave a quart of blood for before and after testing (necessitating 2 visits to the vampires) AND have a 3 day 'cooling off' period.
>>
>>And I'm sorry but yes, if someone is going to go out of their way to break the law on something - then they're going to go out of their way to break any other law pertaining to that something.
>
>Ok I think we're getting a bit off topic here. Gun control and your problems with meth laws are not the same thing.
>
>You said this:
>"....There are already reams and reams of laws out there controlling ownership/sale/purchase of guns that law-abiding citizens have to deal with every time we want to purchase a gun. And people who are looking for a gun for ILLEGAL purposes aren't going to abide by these laws because they don't want a paper trail. So why create more for them to ignore and to frustrate people like me?....."
>
>And again I will say that this is a STUPID STUPID STUPID thing to say. How many people were turned down last year because they didn't pass the lame background checks we have in place? If your answer is anything beyond zero then it proves my point. Oh and that number is 1.5 million people who were rejected over the last 15 year period. And where would these people go if that happens? Oh I dunno - how about a gun show? Soooo if there were backgroud checks at gun shows...OMG surely you see the simple logic here. Claiming you dont want the law because criminals will just break them is just beyond ignorant.
>
>
No, my problem is with laws that punish the many for the transgressions of the few. The meth/decongestant thing was merely an example.

As I've said before, how about we treat the 'why someone thought going off on a shooting spree was a reasonable reaction' to whatever was going on in their lives? How about we teach kids that guns are not toys, instead of treating guns like some mysterious thing that's automatically going to make kids want to get ahold of them?