Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Just had cops show up

 Pages:  1  

arkoma - 1-6-2014 at 14:33

looking for a "meth lab" of course. They were actually rather adult and listened to reason, but IF I HADN'T HAD A BOUND LAB NOTEBOOK I probably would have been fried.

[edit]five carloads of cops and the fire marshall to determine "common household chemicals", and I kept it all

[Edited on 6-1-2014 by arkoma]

Burner - 1-6-2014 at 16:35

Where was this??

arkoma - 1-6-2014 at 18:23

Nevada

Zephyr - 1-6-2014 at 18:36

Do you know why they thought you had a meth lab?
Were you buying red P online or doing something equally suspicious? If not, this story is even more worrying...
At least you got to keep your chemicals.

numos - 1-6-2014 at 21:30

What kind of safety measures does you lab have, fire cabinets, separation by chemical properties (eg. oxidizers and reducing agents in different cabinets), fire extinguisher?

Just wanting to know what you got away with, since my lab is not perfect in that aspect. (Fire cabinets are expensive!)

What about overall look, clean, white, organized?

I feel where I live an eventual visit by authorities in unavoidable and I want to give my lab the best chance its got.

arkoma - 2-6-2014 at 04:05

Quote: Originally posted by Pinkhippo11  
Do you know why they thought you had a meth lab?
Were you buying red P online or doing something equally suspicious? If not, this story is even more worrying...
At least you got to keep your chemicals.


Nosy ass neighbors that ASSUME. NO RP or I2 My latest experiment was about anthocyanin pigments in various flowers, which I already should have wrote up and posted.

As was expecting this, I already had written on the inside cover of my lab notebook. THANK GOD I made one. Pages glued in, numbered and dated. It's what saved me. I must say that the Fallon, NV Police and Fire Departments were quite professional and knowledgeable. (The officer was quite curious about my electrolysis cell, and when i said it WASN'T Uncle Festers he smiled).

@numos--this is the extent of my "organization" Laundry room counter, chems on the cabinet shelves above.

I did end up with a "souvenir" though

The Volatile Chemist - 2-6-2014 at 06:46

And this is why I'm cautious... Not to say at all that you aren't, arkoma, but the people that live in Canada have it easy, and don't worry too much. I don't think that having a lab notebook (Which I do) could keep them from pinning SOMETHING on me for having, WOW, on-line bought chemicals. I don't mind coming across as paranoid here, guys, I apologize. But the US can get away with a lot of pinning. They enforce some laws certain ways than others. Oh well.
Sounds that you got a nice tester! Every so often when I bike around my neighborhood, I smell some funky things. Either one of the guys on this sit live nearby, or there's some cooking nearby. Blegh.

jock88 - 3-6-2014 at 03:06


Thats a sweet copper you persuaded the sheriffs department to leave with you arkoma. Whats that funny tube he's holding up?
God be with the days. I once went into a lab supply house and purchased nitroethanE, benzaldehyde, buthylamine, formic acid, methalamine, Iron etc etc and paid cash and left. Thats about 25 years ago.
Not USA.

(sigh)

arkoma - 4-6-2014 at 19:07

that's me holding the "funny tube" which was a presumptive test for methamphetamine, or any other goddamn amine i imagine. Was lucky the cop "running the show" had some training. As soon as I flipped out my lab notebook at him, he said "well, folks that keep a notebook are usually legitimate". And I still have my copy of "Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments" that I ordered from the Nevada State Library. w00t w00t

bismuthate - 5-6-2014 at 03:01

Do you think that a digital lab notebook would keep me out of trouble? I just started organizing my lab to make it look a bit more official.

Mailinmypocket - 5-6-2014 at 05:50

Maybe print a backup copy of your notes every so often, you never know, especially if your computer were to be taken- god forbid! The nice thing about handwritten notes is that they are unique to you, in your writing and therefore more authentic than word documents. Then again that's just me thinking out loud here.

arkoma - 5-6-2014 at 06:06

I agree with mailinmypocket. I didn't have a legit bound logbook, so i just cut a large piece of vinyl wallpaper as a cover, and GLUED in a short stack of printer paper, numbered all the pages and wrote all the following on the cover:



Obviously from the date, I started using it in just the nick of time. Previously I had been using a loose leaf binder.......

The Volatile Chemist - 5-6-2014 at 14:20

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
Previously I had been using a loose leaf binder.......

Oh crap, is there a problem with using a binder??? I have a Graphing paper notebook in one with scrap paper and notes... :(
(Just hit 250 posts! Of course I was a national hazard from birth, but... :) )

[Edited on 6-5-2014 by The Volatile Chemist]

arkoma - 5-6-2014 at 14:36

Quote:
Structure[edit]
The guidelines for lab notebooks vary widely between institution and between individual labs, but some guidelines are fairly common, for example, like those in the reference.[2] The lab notebook is typically permanently bound and pages are numbered. Dates are given as a rule. All entries are with a permanent marker, e.g., a ballpoint pen. The lab notebook is usually written as the experiments progress, rather than at a later date. In many laboratories, it is the original place of record of data (no copying is carried out from other notes) as well as any observations or insights. For data recorded by other means (e.g., on a computer), the lab notebook will record that the data was obtained and the identification of the data set will be given in the notebook. Many adhere to the concept that a lab notebook should be thought of as a diary of activities that are described in sufficient detail to allow another scientist to replicate the steps. In laboratories with several staff and a common laboratory notebook, entries in the notebook are signed by those making them.

Legal aspects[edit]
To ensure that data cannot be easily altered, notebooks with permanently bound pages are often recommended. Researchers are often encouraged to write only with unerasable pen, to sign and date each page, and to have their notebooks inspected periodically by another scientist who can read and understand it. All of these guidelines can be useful in proving exactly when a discovery was made, in the case of a patent dispute.


From here

My notebook is "ghetto", BUT it has permanently bound [glued], numbered pages and is written in ballpoint. The top of every active page is dated. I even write it down if something I'm doing is pissing me off. i have read that in places like say, Dow Chemical, the lab notebooks are actually NOTARIZED regularly.

Like I said, the young Law Enforcement Officer I dealt with [part of the clandestine lab enforcement team] told me that was what established in his mind that I was doing "legit" hobby chemistry and not trying to blow smoke up his ass.

IrC - 7-6-2014 at 12:37

Would be helpful to others if you would be specific as to why you were visited. What did you buy, from where, and so on. If neighbors turned you in what activities did they normally see you doing which would lead them to conclude they needed to call police. These bits of information are what helps others not make the same mistakes. Sad that today being legitimately interested in science forces us to be 'underground' but this seems to be the reality.

arkoma - 7-6-2014 at 16:28

I didn't buy anything. I have NEVER ordered chemicals. I WAS living at my daughter-in-laws (she threw me out over this), and doing my stuff in the laundry room right inside the back door. The goddamn neighbor was in her backyard and thought she saw a "drug lab". I gotta be careful or I'll get going on a rant here, because it really bothers me. I was LUCKY that the young officer (Ofc Vierra, Fallon, NV PD) was both knowledgeable and actually believes in that great common-law tradition "innocent until". In fact, I wasn't even home at first, was at my church parish hall when he called me and said, "hey wanna come home and explain this to me?". I had my notebook with me, as I was showing it to one of my friends @church. D-in-laws house is on the same block as my church, and when I walked outside the entire damn street was full of cop cars and fire engines. Only things he really asked about were my electrolysis cell and a piece of sink sprayer hose I had (landlord had just replaced kitchen faucet, so I saved the old sprayer hose to rack off my homemade wine LOL). Fire Marshall looked at all my Wal-Mart acquired chems and said "Common household chemicals".

He was interested in the E-cell because of goddamn Uncle Festers electrolytic reduction of ephedrine, and thought the hose might be dope lab grade reflux apparatus. I told him "been there, done that" when you could still buy l-eph, HI and Red P over the counter (in the same visit, no less) and use real glass and reflux for 72 hours. Statute of limitations is WAY over on that. Cost something like 75 cents a gram to produce back in 1985...............w00t. Lucky I can still add 2+2 and get 4.

[digressing]And I just love it when idiots talk about "prope dope". That shit was racemic, start with l-eph or pseudo and its straight dextrorotary baby.[/digressing]

Anyway, all's well that ends well, and since I turned 40 a decade ago lost interest (mostly P: ) in illegal drugs. EtOH!!!

edit-typos
edit- adding link used to shop here
[Edited on 6-8-2014 by arkoma]

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by arkoma]

numos - 7-6-2014 at 21:24

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
I didn't buy anything. [...] I have NEVER ordered chemicals. [...] "Common household chemicals".


This is what worries me. You got away because nothing was specifically a "chemical", or at least that's a big reason.

All of my chemicals, including the OTC ones are put into lab grade reagent bottles, and labeled by chemical name, formula, and NFPA 704 rating. And I'd say less than than half my chemicals are OTC...

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by numos]

The Volatile Chemist - 8-6-2014 at 11:00

I've bought 9 chemicals online, none of those are OTC, but the rest of the ones I have are from an old chemistry set. Ugh, I guess if they come to your house once, they won't again. I'll just have to hope the first time doesn't happen.

Zyklon-A - 8-6-2014 at 11:40

Yeah, same here. I have so many chemicals that are used in drug preparation (eg. iodine, GABA ect.), I'm not sure how it'd go over if the cops came.
Also lots of highly toxic/carcinogenic compounds (eg. chromates, nickel salts ect.).
Got lots of highly flammable and/or explosive compounds and powerful oxidizing agents (eg. Mg and Al powder, flammable liquids, various chlorates and perchlorates, and pre-mixed flash powder ect.) - All stored very safely in a lockable steel cabinet of course.
I doubt they'd care too much about legal corrosive liquids (strong acids, and dissolved bases ect.)

arkoma - 8-6-2014 at 12:03

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon's_reagent]This[/url] was their "presumptive" test. If I understand correctly it turns blue in the presence of ANY secondary amine.

@Zyklon--those folks in Austin are nuts, be careful.

Quote from here
Quote:
"Chemical laboratory apparatus" means any item of equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled substance or a controlled substance analogue, including:

(A) a condenser
(B) a distilling apparatus
(C) a vacuum drier
(D) a three-neck or distilling flask
(E) a tableting machine
(F) an encapsulating machine
(G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel

(H) an Erlenmeyer, two-neck, or single-neck flask
(I) a round-bottom, Florence, thermometer, or filtering flask
(J) a Soxhlet extractor
(K) a transformer
(L) a flask heater
(M) a heating mantel or
(N) an adaptor tube

Texium - 8-6-2014 at 12:09

Yeah, I'm thinking I should probably be a little bit concerned about that too, as I use everything on that list except for the tableting/encapsulating machines and the soxhlet extractor. Not to mention owning quite a few chemicals that are also on their lists. One thing that I've made sure to do though is tell my neighbors about what I do, so they don't get suspicious if they happen to see me walking around my backyard wearing an apron and goggles and carrying curious glassware. That should prevent the problem that you had from happening to me.

APO - 8-6-2014 at 13:47

A notebook is a good idea. Thanks.

numos - 8-6-2014 at 22:56

Good god, this is Texas? Isn't this the state where 5 year olds get shotguns for birthdays? Manage the priorities, by god. I'm hoping California is a bit more lenient, thought they still have a lot of environmental regulations.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 05:56

Quote: Originally posted by numos  
Good god, this is Texas? Isn't this the state where 5 year olds get shotguns for birthdays? Manage the priorities, by god. I'm hoping California is a bit more lenient, thought they still have a lot of environmental regulations.

LOL, this chemical is known to the state of California.... :)
There's an XKCD comic about this for all who read them.

arkoma - 9-6-2014 at 07:16

From Wired magazine

Quote:
In the meantime, more than 30 states have passed laws to restrict sales of chemicals and lab equipment associated with meth production, which has resulted in a decline in domestic meth labs, but makes things daunting for an amateur chemist shopping for supplies. It is illegal in Texas, for example, to buy such basic labware as Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers without first registering with the state’s Department of Public Safety to declare that they will not be used to make drugs. Among the chemicals the Portland, Oregon, police department lists online as “commonly associated with meth labs” are such scientifically useful compounds as liquid iodine, isopropyl alcohol, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide, along with chemistry glassware and pH strips. Similar lists appear on hundreds of Web sites.

“To criminalize the necessary materials of discovery is one of the worst things you can do in a free society,” says Shawn Carlson, a 1999 MacArthur fellow and founder of the Society for Amateur Scientists. “The Mr. Coffee machine that every Texas legislator has near his desk has three violations of the law built into it: a filter funnel, a Pyrex beaker, and a heating element. The laws against meth should be the deterrent to making it – not criminalizing activities that train young people to appreciate science.”

The increasingly strict regulatory climate has driven a wedge of paranoia between young chemists and their potential mentors. “I don’t tell anyone about what I do at home,” writes one anonymous high schooler on Sciencemadness.org, an online forum for amateur scientists. “A lot of ignorant people at my school will just spread rumors about me … The teacher will hear about them and I will get into legal trouble … I have so much glassware at my house, any excuse will not cut it. So I keep my mouth shut.”


^^^bold type added by me

From here

Quote:
Additionally, within a Texas law detailing penalties for those found in violation of drug policies, “intent to unlawfully manufacture the controlled substance methamphetamine is presumed” if an individual possesses or transports a combination of 3 or more of such common chemicals as iodine, lye (commonly found in drain cleaner), alcohol, paint thinner, or table salt, or any one of other useful chemicals/materials in amateur science, including unregistered glassware


Good thing I no longer live in Texas, I would have been possibly FUCKED.

Edit This "cop" forum can't even spell amateur correctly. Oh my oh my.

[Edited on 6-9-2014 by arkoma]

chemrox - 9-6-2014 at 13:36

You might have had a notebook detailing experiments with possible analgesics using chemical names of course and had no problems. Questions: why did you admit them? why did you answer questions? If you don't exercise you're rights you will lose them. Do you try to make them like you? If so you're a sucker. To the statement, "I can be back in an hour with a warrant.." Reply, "I'll be here!" It's almost always a bluff. A nosy neighbor doesn't constitute probable cause. If you're vague about the legality of what you're doing, look up the applicable laws instead of feeling and probably looking guilty. Keep regular hours. It's not required but helps. Check your state pharmacy board and see if there's a precursor registration. If there is pay the $100 or whatever and have the certificate. I once had a cop show up in response to a citizen report of something totally innocent and legal. I was out with a friend and my wife looking at houses. After the cop visit, I called the community outreach part of the police dept. and the next day I got apologies from the cop and the citizen.

Texium - 9-6-2014 at 13:51

Quote: Originally posted by numos  
Good god, this is Texas? Isn't this the state where 5 year olds get shotguns for birthdays? Manage the priorities, by god. I'm hoping California is a bit more lenient, thought they still have a lot of environmental regulations.


Priorities indeed. In terms of danger to the public: guns>chemicals by far.

arkoma - 9-6-2014 at 14:44

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
You might have had a notebook detailing experiments with possible analgesics using chemical names of course and had no problems. Questions: why did you admit them? why did you answer questions? If you don't exercise you're rights you will lose them. Do you try to make them like you? If so you're a sucker. To the statement, "I can be back in an hour with a warrant.." Reply, "I'll be here!" It's almost always a bluff. A nosy neighbor doesn't constitute probable cause. If you're vague about the legality of what you're doing, look up the applicable laws instead of feeling and probably looking guilty. Keep regular hours. It's not required but helps. Check your state pharmacy board and see if there's a precursor registration. If there is pay the $100 or whatever and have the certificate. I once had a cop show up in response to a citizen report of something totally innocent and legal. I was out with a friend and my wife looking at houses. After the cop visit, I called the community outreach part of the police dept. and the next day I got apologies from the cop and the citizen.


If you had read ALL my posts thoroughly you would realize I was living at MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAWS. I was at church when this transpired and she let them in. I do know AND exercise my Fourth Amendment rights. I've gotten out of a car before and locked the keys in when being pulled over "just in case".

I was doing nothing with analgesics--my experiments concerned uric acid and plant pigments; I ran an electrochemical cell to make my own NaOH as it is a pain in the ass to even find for sale any more.

I also had a lot of home-made copper compounds because they are fucking gorgeous. Now I'm living in a damned motel, and working on chromatography of wild flower pigments. The housecleaning staff and Land-Lady here are apprised and have no problems with it.

I am a 50 year old "Ex-Felon", been down that road. I went to prison in 1993 for CA H & S 11359(a) "Possession of Concentrated Cannabis"

READ ALL MY POSTS before you assume.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 14:57


Quote:
I ran an electrochemical cell to make my own NaOH as it is a pain in the ass to even find for sale any more.

Making it from baking soda? Wow.

Zyklon-A - 9-6-2014 at 15:02

Who said he made it from sodium bicarbonate? Sodium chloride I'm sure, that's how everyone makes it - via electrolysis at least.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 15:04

Quote: Originally posted by Zyklonb  
Who said he made it from sodium bicarbonate? Sodium chloride I'm sure, that's how everyone makes it - via electrolysis at least.

Oh... Isn't a NaCl cell for chlorates though...? I really don't know of the common ways things like this are done...

arkoma - 9-6-2014 at 15:33

NaCl. Ya gotta have a diaphragm cell. And I know your ^^^ "skittish" of drug cookery related stuff, but that is how I found out how to make it. From "King's Chemistry Survival Guide". Cops had NO access to my laptop, fortunately, because I have scads of such literature in various Calibre libraries. Ya want it, I'll private torrent it to you. Or FTP.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 15:56

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
NaCl. Ya gotta have a diaphragm cell. And I know your ^^^ "skittish" of drug cookery related stuff, but that is how I found out how to make it. From "King's Chemistry Survival Guide". Cops had NO access to my laptop, fortunately, because I have scads of such literature in various Calibre libraries. Ya want it, I'll private torrent it to you. Or FTP.

Na. (Sodium, yep...) I'm taking chemistry for the next two school years. I'll ask my teachers the 'drug chem' questions, there's no hard copy of their responces for the cops to get :P LOL, just kidding. I'll find some other more legal ways to get chemistry info. Thanks though.

arkoma - 9-6-2014 at 16:24

clay flowerpot, sat solution NaCl, battery rod electrodes and 12 volts. NaOCl at anode and NaOH at cathode. NaClO3 ya get from a diagphramLESS cell.

Edit-And we are in the United States, young man. Information is NOT illegal yet and when it is, I'm liable to actually take up arms (Are ya listening, Ft. George G. Meade?). It saddens me that our young people are being conditioned to a police state mentality. I ordered "Pyrotechny" by George Weingart from the Florida State Library when I was about 12. They didn't bat an eyeball.

Are you familiar with the term "Chilling Effects"? You've been chilled and don't even realize it. You ARE giving up your liberty. Not trying to lecture to awful bad, but ponder this please. I would have U2U'ed this conversation, but I want ALL the young folks here to think on this.

Quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


^^^BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, one of "our" greatest citizen scientists.

I'm getting old, have MAYBE 30 years left, so the torch of liberty needs to be taken up by younger hands What kind of world do YOU want to inherit?

Edit--P.S. this IS a "drug cookery" and "bomb-making" site LOL--however, both require real science to pull off properly. Quit being scared.

[Edited on 6-10-2014 by arkoma]

[Edited on 6-10-2014 by arkoma]

numos - 9-6-2014 at 17:28

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
Information is NOT illegal yet
[Edited on 6-10-2014 by arkoma]


Exactly, and this isn't even the biggest issue, it's the public blandness, the police aren't intuitive, if you asked me, people should be judged by logic and reason, not rules and regulations, OR more ideally the rules and regulations would be based of logic and reason, but this is quite obviously not the case.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 18:43

SSL and security have their purposes. The days of 1984 (The book) will come soon. I don't think I'll care too much If I'm not allowed to look at certtain documents. About 1 week from now, I plan to begin doing some reading on security methods. Won't be as 'fraidy' once I know how safe something like ssl or httpos are or are not.

Texium - 9-6-2014 at 18:44

And even when logic and reason are used, some idiot politicians or lawyers are always finding loopholes so that laws have to be made more strict and less allowing for exceptions. It's a problem with human greed, ignorance, and also with semantics, in that there is no good way to express meaning that can not be tainted by technicalities. Thus, stupid laws that are way too broad emerge.

Zephyr - 9-6-2014 at 19:13

Does anyone know of any of the these laws. I have searched Google but have only come across DEA lists of suspicious chemicals. Nothing on how possession of these chemicals is prosecuted. It would be nice to have some sort of legal documentation to hang in my lab, if only to convince the police of my legitimacy.

The Volatile Chemist - 9-6-2014 at 19:15

I agree! I'd print'em out if someone knows where to find them.

arkoma - 9-6-2014 at 19:20

@volatile. Read "Little Brother" by Cory Doctorow. IT COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW. IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU. The book is available FREE as he has "copylefted" it with creative commons. "Copyright is dead, long live copyleft".

@Pinkhippo11. I too try to find these laws. No luck. My brother did time in california for "illegal storage" of hazardous chemicals, but then again he had about a gallon of phenylacetone.............and methylamine. Didja get the link for "grandad's"?

Texium - 10-6-2014 at 14:07

I also just started a notebook, figured it would be best to be on the safe side, and it might actually be kind of fun too.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 10-6-2014 at 14:14

Take this with a grain of salt and in addition to your own research, I am not a lawyer, blah blah etcetera.

It's totally cool on a federal level to have DEA List I and II chemicals. Suppliers are responsible for recording your purchases once you go over certain limits, however. Scheduled substances and analogues are another story, but if you were getting into that you'd know it.

However, at the state and local level, different jurisdictions may have less tolerance, like areas of Texas where they have legal leeway to straight up assume possessing certain combinations of chemicals equals intent to manufacture. Usually, this sort of thing isn't acted on, it's supposed to be a measure for hitting drug cooks harder even if they're not caught with their hands directly in the cookie jar, but it can be, and has been, abused all to hell. (Many of these laws are almost certainly unconstitutional. In all likelihood they will not be challenged.)

It's difficult to find local ordinances sometimes. Many/most of them applicable to home chemists relate to fire safety. You don't want to get busted for something vague like "endangerment" by someone who didn't want an unwarranted drug bust to go to waste. If you can't find the information yourself, call your fire department and see if there are any regulations on storage of chemicals in the home.

If you do anything related to explosives or use equipment/chemicals commonly used in drug manufacture, you're going to want to dig up information on those as well. Properly disposing of hazardous waste is also a plus. If you can neutralize something, do it. If you can't, store it until either you can handle it yourself, or you can get it to someone who can. A local university may be of some help.

[Edited on 6-10-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

AvBaeyer - 10-6-2014 at 18:01

Etaoin Shrdlu has really provided a good level of insight into potential legal issues. If a local jurisdiction wants to bust you even though there is no prohibition on ownership of various chemicals, etc., it certainly can do so. Virtually anything you do or own can be criminalized using various environmental or zoning laws, especially here in California. Unfortunately, that is what we have to put up with as anything with the association to "chemicals" induces extreme anxiety in the low information population.

AvB

The Volatile Chemist - 10-6-2014 at 18:43

Thanks, Etaoin. I'd rather be safe than have to ever talk to a cop, I make comments sometimes that are easily taken wrong.

arkoma - 10-6-2014 at 19:02

Quote: Originally posted by AvBaeyer  
Etaoin Shrdlu has really provided a good level of insight into potential legal issues. If a local jurisdiction wants to bust you even though there is no prohibition on ownership of various chemicals, etc., it certainly can do so. Virtually anything you do or own can be criminalized using various environmental or zoning laws, especially here in California. Unfortunately, that is what we have to put up with as anything with the association to "chemicals" induces extreme anxiety in the low information population.

AvB


This is the direct result of government induced fear and terror--"chilling effects". I went looking for some statistics a minute ago, and this is what I found:

(these stats apply to the United States)

1.6 MILLION crashes each year due to cell phone usage while driving.
Source
40,393 "drug induced deaths"
Source
3,487 deaths and 11,318 injuries from "terrorism"
Source

Yet, our tax dollars are applied to idiotic endeavors like the DEA and their "lists" and a supposed "war on terror". Driving and texting is a fricking traffic offense. To ANYONE with a BRAIN capable of reasoning it would seem that cell phones are a "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" and should be outlawed, doors kicked in for them, and life sentences handed out for possession of such dangerous devices!!! (I don't happen to own one LOL)

Are you listening, alphabet soup agencies? I know you are.

Patrick Alan Wastie, and I VOTE.

The Volatile Chemist - 10-6-2014 at 19:58

Lol, I don't have a cell either.
Like, why does the government even care about us? It's not like they're making money off turning in supposed terrorists :)

arkoma - 10-6-2014 at 20:27

Because we make good "news". Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating, and they need a "raison d'etre". In my mind, we need a Department of Cellphone Security WAYYYYY more than an alleged Department of Homeland Security, or a Drug Enforcement Agency. The statistics clearly show whats more of a "clear and present danger" to the American peeps!!!

I have a googlevoice # BTW so i am not telecommunicationsless, though.

numos - 10-6-2014 at 21:08

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  

Are you listening, alphabet soup agencies? I know you are.


Is this what they are called now? A very fitting name... :)

Just out of curiosity, what do they do with the confiscated drugs and equipment? I doubt they keep it in storage indefinitely. So they destroy it? Sell it?

The Volatile Chemist - 11-6-2014 at 07:46

Quote: Originally posted by numos  
Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  

Are you listening, alphabet soup agencies? I know you are.


Is this what they are called now? A very fitting name... :)

Just out of curiosity, what do they do with the confiscated drugs and equipment? I doubt they keep it in storage indefinitely. So they destroy it? Sell it?

AFAIK they destroy it. That's what they did with a load of illegal ivory.

Rogeryermaw - 11-6-2014 at 09:12

the u.s.? one of the most corrupt governments on earth? sell it, i'm sure...after using such items to secure greater amounts of drugs and/or other contraband.

arkoma - 11-6-2014 at 10:47

"back-in-the-day", when I was actively cooking/using/selling desoxyephedrine, I had enough taken to total up to about a pound over the course of five years. The only drug charge I've EVER had is "Possession of Concentrated Cannabis", which I did two years in state prison for in the early 90's. I'm pretty damned sure that I was never charged with possession, sales, or manufacturing of meth because the cops didn't want to turn it in. They'd take my shit and tell me to "get the fuck off the streets for the night, this is your freebie". Right. Was THEIR freebie. Not that I'm complaining, as it was an "occupational hazard", and was better than going to jail. LOL. This was in rural eastern San Bernardino county California.

I think I got charged for the hash because they were no longer catching me with top shelf product!

The Volatile Chemist - 11-6-2014 at 18:29

Quote: Originally posted by Rogeryermaw  
the u.s.? one of the most corrupt governments on earth? sell it, i'm sure...after using such items to secure greater amounts of drugs and/or other contraband.
Murica??? Hey... :P

Rogeryermaw - 12-6-2014 at 11:24

the u.s. may be corrupt and full of shit but it's my corrupt, full of shit home!!

arkoma - 12-6-2014 at 11:34

s'ok roger---it's volatiles, too I'm pretty sure. I'm a USMC veteran and the whole thing is too be able to SAY whatever ya want.

The Volatile Chemist - 13-6-2014 at 19:09

I second y'all. And believe whatever you want too! Tyndale's England would not have been a nice place to live!

aga - 22-6-2014 at 13:59

Jesus.
"Intent is assumed if you have 3 chemicals"

That is downright nasty, and seriously dangerous.

So if you manage to get a 100ml beaker into the State Governor's house, they probably already have whiskey or vodka, table salt and NaOH.

That puts them in violation of the statute, and must be presumed a meth mixer.
The unregistered glassware would be the clincher.
No possiblity of arguing 'someone put it there ! as they are already presumed guilty, by Law !

This is way too easy.
Forget the beaker.
Demand an inspection of all state legislators to see if they got ethanol, salt and soda.
If so ...

aga - 22-6-2014 at 14:12

Funniest thing i ever heard was a Thai operation in the 70s or 80s.

HUGE pile of captured heroin in a field.
Obviously surrounded by heavily armed guards.
Some shouting, press photos etc.
Then they set fire to it, to show it being destroyed.
Big fire. Really big.

The guards Downwind of the fire got mashed off their tits, whilst still being armed to the teeth ...

Brain&Force - 22-6-2014 at 14:52

Quote: Originally posted by aga  

"Intent is assumed if you have 3 chemicals"


I have water, gasoline, and a piece of terbium.

Cops, take me away.

arkoma - 22-6-2014 at 14:56

meanwhile, back at arkoma's ranch..............wandering through town deep off in my cups, I can't even get a NOD from the mofo's

No Where To Go

franklyn - 15-8-2014 at 21:04

" If you say anything to the police, that can be used against you.
Now, if you don't say anything before you are warned of your rights,
that too can be used against you."
http://news.yahoo.com/court-silence-used-against-suspects-18...

As I had cited here _
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=24336&pag...
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decided-silence-used-aga...
http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-pre-miranda-silence-used-14...
Since the U.S. Supreme Court has already previously upheld this doctrine ,
expect it to be used more widely as legalized entrapment


.

arkoma - 16-8-2014 at 06:23

California and Texas--two lovely bastions of liberty. Shows that your states supposed Liberal or Conservative bent means nothing, really.

So far I have the highest opinions of Nevada and Arizona when it comes to personal liberty but they have drawbacks, too (don't get caught with weed in either one)

Texium - 16-8-2014 at 07:07

Also Arizona isn't the best place to go if you're not straight and white.

arkoma - 16-8-2014 at 07:45

Arizona IS the only state that this is legal though (Europeans prepare to be horrified)

Quote:
In a vehicle, any adult person who is not a prohibited possessor may openly carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle whether in a holster, case, compartment, or in plain view. Persons under 21 may openly carry a loaded or unloaded firearm in a vehicle only if it is in plain view, i.e. discernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.


edit

Quote:
Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit as of July 29, 2010.[5] Arizona is only the third state in modern U.S. history (after Vermont and Alaska) to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, and it is the first state with a large urban population to do so.


[Edited on 8-16-2014 by arkoma]

hissingnoise - 16-8-2014 at 08:45

Quote:
(Europeans prepare to be horrified)

It's more puzzlement than horror, for me anyway, though recent events in MO are certainly horrific . . .

But how did you go from the "Land of the Free" to one that jails a higher number of citizens than any other country in history and the "Home of the Brave" to one in which a sizable proportion of the population actually seem to need loaded guns within reach at all times?


Texium - 16-8-2014 at 09:39

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
(Europeans prepare to be horrified)

It's more puzzlement than horror, for me anyway, though recent events in MO are certainly horrific . . .

But how did you go from the "Land of the Free" to one that jails a higher number of citizens than any other country in history and the "Home of the Brave" to one in which a sizable proportion of the population actually seem to need loaded guns within reach at all times?

I think about that all the time. Once at school while sitting in class, I innocently mentioned that there aren't any guns in my house, and suddenly everyone else who was sitting around me looked at me, obviously appalled, including many of whom I would have never guessed to be the type to own guns.

[Edited on 8-16-2014 by zts16]

arkoma - 16-8-2014 at 10:05

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
(Europeans prepare to be horrified)


But how did you go from the "Land of the Free" to one that jails a higher number of citizens than any other country in history


Indeed. It is VERY disturbing to me. My sister, a Jehovah's Witness no less, and an alleged pacifist/conscientious objector thinks Gitmo obviously must just be terrs that don't deserve a trial, believes in the death penalty, and thinks we ought to nuke ISIS. Not sure really how she feels about gun ownership.

As for me, Guantanamo Bay is scar (one of many) on the American soul and against our founding principles.

Quote:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences


From The Declaration of Independence^^^

As for the fact that we imprison a larger portion of our population than the most ruthless authoritarian regimes.......where do I start? It really irks me when I see how many of the young bright kids on here are AFRAID of being automatically assumed to be making illegal grugs and keep moot about their scientific endeavors. The worst part is that their fear is actually justified.

Here is an example of another very common crime perpetrated against us by our own authorities (from PBS Frontline website)

Quote:
Rudy Ramirez never expected to become a statistic in the War on Drugs when he set off to buy a used car, $7300 in cash at the ready, in January 2000. Ramirez, who lives in Edinburg, Texas near the border with Mexico, had spotted a listing for the used Corvette in a magazine and wanted it badly enough that he talked his brother-in-law into accompanying him on a thousand mile road trip to Missouri to make the purchase. When Ramirez was pulled over by police in Kansas City, however, the tenor of the trip changed.

"They asked if I had any money with me, and I said yes," recalls Ramirez. "I didn't think they would take it away. I had nothing to hide." But the trajectory of the rental car, and the piles of cash, suggested otherwise to police--who suspected him of trafficking drugs from the Mexican border. As Ramirez tells it, he was detained at the side of the road for hours while his car was thoroughly searched and inspected by a drug dog. "They kept asking me, `Where are the drugs?'" he recalls. "I told them they had the wrong guy."

The Drug Enforcement Agency's file on the case indicates that Ramirez gave officers confused statements about both the money and his destination, and that his extremely brief stay in a Missouri motel looked suspicious. What's more, the drug dog "alerted" on parts of the car, indicating that drugs could have been there at one time--which, since it was a rental car, may or may not have anything to do with Rudy Ramirez.

Still, the search turned up no drugs of any kind, and the officers finally told Ramirez that he was free to go--but not before confiscating $6,000 of his money in the name of the federal war on drugs in a process known as "forfeiture." Despite check stubs that he says prove that the money came from a car accident settlement reached several months before, and bank records showing that it was withdrawn from his account just prior to the Missouri trip, Ramirez has, to this day, been unable to get his money returned. He shakes his head as he describes it. "All I want is my money back," he says.




forgottenpassword - 16-8-2014 at 12:38

When was America the land of the free, exactly? Before communism was outlawed? Before prohibition? What time period are you thinking of?

The Volatile Chemist - 16-8-2014 at 15:29

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
Arizona IS the only state that this is legal though (Europeans prepare to be horrified)

Quote:
In a vehicle, any adult person who is not a prohibited possessor may openly carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle whether in a holster, case, compartment, or in plain view. Persons under 21 may openly carry a loaded or unloaded firearm in a vehicle only if it is in plain view, i.e. discernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.



[Edited on 8-16-2014 by arkoma]


That's great! :P "I call shotgun" has more meaning...

arkoma - 16-8-2014 at 15:57

Arizona was the last of the lower 48 to attain statehood, in 1912. Gun rights are codified in the state constitution. It can be a little un-nerving to see people with pistols shopping for groceries.....

That said, Phoenix is the only US "big city" that does not terrify me. You can't DRAG me to Los Angeles.

Phoenix also still has a Chem-Lab Supply

kt5000 - 17-8-2014 at 10:43

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  

I am a 50 year old "Ex-Felon", been down that road. I went to prison in 1993 for CA H & S 11359(a) "Possession of Concentrated Cannabis"


Truly sad how 20 years later, with a doctor's blessing, you'd be in the clear. Give it another 2.5 yrs and I doubt it will require a medicinal reason either.

franklyn - 24-8-2014 at 11:08

I've said elsewhere don't confuse your rights with the law
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=15031&pag...

While entirely lawful to do so , open carry is like waving a cape at a bull ( law enforcement officer )

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/map-where-is-open-carry-legal-1...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30TagPCNE4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNOk4_QH21g

I would like to see open carry flash mobs respond to the scene whenever someone is harassed in this way.

.

Texium - 24-8-2014 at 11:17

And at the same time, that brings up the point of "just because it is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it." Open-carrying for the sole purpose of gaining attention and causing a reaction is immature and inappropriate.

@ zts16

franklyn - 24-8-2014 at 11:28

You are sooo wrong it's not worth responding to.

arkoma - 24-8-2014 at 21:00

Franklyn, these kids are ALREADY police state conditioned. People in Arizona open carry because they CAN, not to "attract attention". I imagine they attract less attention from robbers and thieves.

Texium - 28-8-2014 at 14:10

Well, the problem with letting people walk around proudly displaying their guns is that although they may be perfectly aware in their own heads that they don't plan on shooting anybody, anyone else who sees them will have no idea whether they're just an innocent freedom lovin' 'murrican or someone who's about to start shooting people. I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing someone in a restaurant with an assault rifle, and would probably leave.

IrC - 28-8-2014 at 14:57

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Well, the problem with letting people walk around proudly displaying their guns is that although they may be perfectly aware in their own heads that they don't plan on shooting anybody, anyone else who sees them will have no idea whether they're just an innocent freedom lovin' 'murrican or someone who's about to start shooting people. I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing someone in a restaurant with an assault rifle, and would probably leave.


I would also leave for similar reasons although I firmly believe living in excess fear is not living at all. You just do not walk around with high powered semi auto rifles whether on slings or not in polite society. 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip. I would never have considered carrying a rifle. If you were ever in a situation a weapon was required only an idiot would choose a rifle in close quarters. By the time you swung it around and aimed you would be lead heavy. No speed with such a weapon. Also even in areas carrying is common, a rifle speaks intimidation not self defense. If you carry a weapon in society carry with discretion or stay home. It is not about what is legal it is about what is acceptable in polite society and these rifle toting fools only serve to sway the public mindset into allowing more rights of self defense to be legislated away. Idiots politically shooting their own feet, nothing more. They do us harm not good because intimidation is all they accomplish. Not awareness of rights as they so often claim.

An armed society is a polite society. This is not just a saying it is a fact. People are far less prone to be abusive if they realize consequences may be dire for them. In 91 there was a string of gang initiations shooting people on the freeways. I had a dual holster and carried a pair of matching .45's one on each side. That got looks often, most normally see someone only carrying a single sidearm usually discretely, the proper way. I never went anywhere my guns were not welcome. I was never bothered by people and never ended up in a dangerous situation, mostly because the wise pay attention to their surroundings. Yet so many I knew in 30 years there that chided me eventually ended up telling a story of the day they got robbed. I never did. My own sister walked across the street to a 7-11 with her 10 year old son and after crossing at the light a 17 year old walked up grabbed her son by the collar, held him up off the ground and pointed a .38 at her demanding her money or he would shoot them both. No cops anywhere in sight in the middle of the day. That was right off 43rd Ave between Camelback and Bethany Home, if you know the area you know how busy and how much traffic is there. The punk had no fear and did not care that likely 500 people saw him. Yet no one helped. Too afraid. After that she started carrying as well and never made fun of me again. Also, she was never robbed again.


Oscilllator - 28-8-2014 at 17:47

Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.

Texium - 28-8-2014 at 19:09

Yes, I agree with the last two posts to the extent that while I have no desire to carry a gun myself, I don't exactly have a problem with people carrying in a discreet and non-flashy way, as described by IrC if it makes them feel comfortable (as long as there are strict regulations regarding who can own guns, i.e. only sane people with no criminal history). Carrying a rifle around is completely pointless. The only purpose it serves is showing off and gaining attention. People who carry such weapons are a nuisance, like someone who drives around with no muffler on their car on purpose.

violet sin - 28-8-2014 at 19:20

I find it funny checking into a motel carrying all your guns( buck hunting, not shenanigans) wasn't even about to leave them in the truck for some crack head to steal. a couple of times, some of the other guests found it startling, as they opened their rooms to go out for dinner and see us walking down the hall with 2-3 guns apiece. we were all wearing camo and talking politely to eachother, so it deff didn't come off like we were storming the place. we would just smile and nod, mention something about opening day was in two days and then the look of relief came over them...

this is cali, and there is no open carry. but they were all in cases, some with locks. we hunt on public land and earn our meat, no guided BS. the only reason I mention this, is I have been around guns all my life, and the couple times in a hotel were the only times I ever interacted with the general public w/ firearms. I try to stay away from places where you would need one in public. give me forests, hills, mountains and beaches any day, but for god's sake, don't drag me into the city :P

IrC - 29-8-2014 at 01:40

Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator  
Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.


I think it is more nuts for a people to willingly surrender their arms, especially since fairly recent history (<100 years) is proof that even 'good governments' can go very bad. "less guns = less shooting"; How sad it would be to have a knife or a club do you in because you had nothing to defend yourself with. Even in a nation without guns. If the attacker is very large or in numbers their 'hand tools' will be as dangerous to you as any firearm. Likely more painful as well. Also for proof of concept a comparison must be included in the rate of gun deaths before and after you gave up your arms. Did it help that much to lower the rate? Or is it worse? I do not know but I am sure those stats exist somewhere.

Until you can show me a world without a single criminal or evil person in it you cannot show a world where there is zero possibility that one day you will become a victim of violence. Even down under. You will find that guns are owned by citizens in many nations, and in many only rarely or not at all. By this I mean citizens legally allowed ownership by their laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

An old saying "if guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns". Look at gun deaths per 100k people per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

In Mexico citizens outside of special circumstances cannot own guns yet their rate 11.17 is higher than the US 10.3.

Argentina 10.05
Brazil 19.03
Colombia 28.14
El Salvador 46.85
Greece 4.76
Guatemala 36.38
Honduras 64.8
Jamaica 39.74
Panama 17.6
South Africa 21.51
Swaziland 37.6
Uruguay 14.01
Venezuela 50.9

Even in one of your 'civilized' nations close to (or part of Europe; I am unfamiliar with the politics over there) Greece, the rate is nearly half that of the US and we're talking a much smaller country.

Brazil "extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit". Yet the rate above is 19.03, nearly twice the US. In fact in these nations with rates several times the US, the laws are at the same time some of the most restrictive. Which reinforces "if guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns". I find it odd that I hear many speak very often about the US, while never actually doing a comparison elsewhere. Why is that? Because it does not suit your preconceived 'politically correct notions'? Why is it people in other countries are constantly complaining about gun ownership here yet never mention countries where the rate is 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 times higher? Not a word ever. Neither is any thought given to the legal ownership rates in comparison to these numbers.

My main point is no matter what you may think of guns here, there, or anywhere, I for one choose not to be a helpless victim who watches his family robbed tortured raped and murdered (or any combination) while whining 'if only I could have stopped this' or 'if only there was a cop around when you need one'. In simple terms I choose not to be a helpless sheep like victim if I can at all avoid it. One never knows when or where evil will strike or whether they will be able to prevail. Ask a Christian surrounded by ISIS in the Middle East right now if they wish they were armed and at least fight to survive rather than watching their small children's heads being chopped off and stuck on poles. Yes that has been and still is occurring over there right now and if you do not believe it you are a blind fool. Evil exists right now in this world in every single country and one must decide if they wish to be or not to be a helpless victim. Or do they want to show up at the pearly gates thinking to themselves 'it was only one guy, if only I could have defended myself'.

adamsium - 29-8-2014 at 06:20

Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator  
Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.


Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?

Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.

Amos - 29-8-2014 at 06:31

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Well, the problem with letting people walk around proudly displaying their guns is that although they may be perfectly aware in their own heads that they don't plan on shooting anybody, anyone else who sees them will have no idea whether they're just an innocent freedom lovin' 'murrican or someone who's about to start shooting people. I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing someone in a restaurant with an assault rifle, and would probably leave.


I would also leave for similar reasons although I firmly believe living in excess fear is not living at all. You just do not walk around with high powered semi auto rifles whether on slings or not in polite society. 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip.



Isn't consciously equipping and carrying a weapon out everywhere you go somewhat indicative of "living in excess fear"?

hissingnoise - 29-8-2014 at 06:33

Quote:
. . . our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to defend themselves.

OTOH, your paranoia might be more easily treated than accidental gunshot wounds!


hissingnoise - 29-8-2014 at 06:46

Quote:
30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip.

Thankfully, I can't even begin to imagine what that level of pervasive dread might feel like ─ but it seems to reflect a society that appears to West Europeans to be terminally screwed-up . . .


Amos - 29-8-2014 at 07:29

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip.

Thankfully, I can't even begin to imagine what that level of pervasive dread might feel like ─ but it seems to reflect a society that appears to West Europeans to be terminally screwed-up . . .



I don't know whatever happened to Phoenix, but I've never felt an urge to carry a firearm in downtown New York or downtown Chicago. I assure you that while the U.S. is pretty screwed-up in general, it's not to the level he's claiming. If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns...

IrC - 29-8-2014 at 11:10

adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Thankfully, I can't even begin to imagine what that level of pervasive dread might feel like


Quote: Originally posted by No Tears Only Dreams Now  
Isn't consciously equipping and carrying a weapon out everywhere you go somewhat indicative of "living in excess fear"?


Not at all hissingnoise, and No Tears Only Dreams Now. In fact I willfully chose to carry arms due to the realistic view that as long as a nonzero chance of evil coming my way exists I choose to be one not subject helplessly to it. For your point of view to have validity you should require your police and military's to also disarm. Why is it you do not? Might it be that evil does exist? That other nations might attack? Why don't you require every soul in the EU to disarm? Your citizens, police, military. Get rid of your nukes as well, your bombs, all weapons. Including clubs, pitchforks, anything one might defend themselves or their country with. I will sit back over here and watch lemming history unfold.

You are being invaded just as we are, in a few decades of out breeding you, your nation will no longer exist. I just read 'Mohammed' is the most popular name in Norway. I would have thought it was Thor. Oh wait, it was long ago. So two things are happening there, one a doom to the victims of crime on an individual basis, the other a doom to your nation as a whole. Pardon us 'crazy Americans' who choose not to pass silently into the night, into darkness. Whether as individuals who choose not to be a crime victim, or as citizens who choose not to see our nations demise. The founders were not thinking about hunting when they wrote the second amendment. Their thoughts were focused upon the possibility of tyranny in a future where government has gone dark.

One must wonder what the numbers are of innocent citizens murdered by evil people in the last hundred years and how they compare between the nations which comprise the EU, and America. Even if your murder rate per capita is lower today, how do the totals compare over a century? It is not only about self defense from crime, it is about the every generation or two incidents of mass murder by governments. If this were to happen again what would an unarmed populace do? Oh yeah we know, just study 1935 to 1945.

Liberals refuse to look realistically at facts, refuse to learn from history. Facts like 20 to 30 people are shot virtually every weekend in Chicago. In nearly all cases every weekend, every one of the shooters illegally in possession of a firearm. Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital in the world.

Crime is aided by liberal policies such as letting criminals off too easy and too soon allowing them back out to do it again. Stories in the news abound if one only reads them.

I for one not only would not be such a victim, my actions would save down the road every single other soul doomed to be a victim if the criminal had not been stopped the one time they chose to victimize me. Yet I know you would never look at the FBI statistics on crime in your cities, nor the amount of guns fired defending the innocent. Ironically it is your liberal policies which have generated this rise in the crime rate. You libs just love illegal immigrants. Yet FBI stats prove their being allowed here in ever increasing numbers drastically increases those stats. That in fact virtually all of the kidnapping in Phoenix is done by illegals who are here illegally. No zts I will not bother giving links you would choose to disbelieve anyway. If you really want truth search for it with an open mind. Truth such as murder rates, DC, Detroit, on and on cities ruled by liberal policies which outlaw self defense having the very highest rates.

"If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns... "

Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post? Do you think you are so intelligent a clever thinly veiled despicable accusation against a member of SCM would go unnoticed?

Attacking 'to the man' in debate is sure sign of lack of standing for your position.

On another note this is one reason I like the fact the left hates guns. Who is it always stating 'liberalism is a mental disorder'?

"I assure you that while the U.S. is pretty screwed-up in general, it's not to the level he's claiming."

If you are going to state in your own words what you claim I said then quote my precise words. Otherwise all you do is quote your own version of what you think I said. The US was at 10.3, less that most of the countries I listed. Far less than many. In 30 years in Phoenix I saw a lot of crime, I knew many victims. I however was not one of them.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXCUIeC__9g

hissingnoise - 29-8-2014 at 11:54

Quote:
Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post?

It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, that he was simply referring to mentally ill people in general ─ why you'd arbitrarily assume he had you in mind is quite beyond me?



IrC - 29-8-2014 at 13:01

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post?

It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, that he was simply referring to mentally ill people in general ─ why you'd arbitrarily assume he had you in mind is quite beyond me?




So you read minds now, or should you let people answer for themselves. He stated about me a comment related to my position which he said was in error (not forgetting a statement itself in error - I never stated this I stated as long as a nonzero chance for being a victim exists I choose not to be one, I never said it's the wild west here), the 'it's not to the level he's claiming', is directed at me. Followed by "If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns...". The ending dots themselves yet another statement. To anyone with the ability to reason that is. Grouping these together with no other words justifying the position leads one to make the connection. Again, one with reading comprehension that is. One must consider how their words will read online to strangers as well as what they are thinking at the time they wrote them. How they put them together, how they will be perceived. He did not put this line following a new branching direction of conversation concerning who is responsible for gun crimes, as in the mentally ill. He followed his comment about me with those words standing alone then left conclusions trailing as to meaning by the .... As if to say 'guess what I am really thinking/concluding'.

I see this as accusation directed at me. You can see it however you choose. He may have meant who knows what the way he posted it in the order he did. In any case as I said one must look at their posts in light of how others who unlike you hissy cannot read minds may perceive them as well as what they were thinking which only they* really know. *I assume you also from your implied mind reading abilities since you are answering for another what their thoughts were when posting.

Number one while the premise may hold that a few mentally ill have done violence, the greatest majority were not mentally ill. How else do you justify the prisons being more filled than institutions if this concept was all encompassing. More filled per capita in the US than any other nation.

By the way you are proving my words correct. "adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.".

Obvious from your focusing not upon the content of my post but rather what you thought was a point you could use to jump in and attack. A point very minor to the post in it's entirety, and one you cannot know for certain (unless you are a mind reader). Typical liberal progressive tactics.

Amos - 29-8-2014 at 13:26

The amount of hypocrisy here is unreal. IrC, You accuse other people of putting words in your mouth(and of trying to "read minds"), and here you are, claiming I called you mentally ill(really?) and acting as though you know my entire political stance on firearms, etc. What I was telling hissingnoise is to give the United States a chance, that not everyone in the country is so pervaded by paranoia that they are too scared and un-trusting to leave the house without a sidearm. For the record, this kind of conversation shouldn't even be in this thread; it's completely unrelated. Those that have never traveled far enough outside their geographical and mental comfort zone to experience the world and how it works will never gain a less ridiculously biased worldview until that has happened, so I'm not going to entertain those people in an argument. That being said, I will point out, IrC, that you're using your heaps of irrelevant statistics incorrectly; The figures you gave were firearm related deaths per hundred thousand people. Greece having a smaller population than the United States has nothing to do with it; people are far less likely to be killed by a gun there than here. Leaving the thread now.

Texium - 29-8-2014 at 14:18

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  

So you read minds now, or should you let people answer for themselves. He stated about me a comment related to my position which he said was in error (not forgetting a statement itself in error - I never stated this I stated as long as a nonzero chance for being a victim exists I choose not to be one, I never said it's the wild west here), the 'it's not to the level he's claiming', is directed at me. Followed by "If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns...". The ending dots themselves yet another statement. To anyone with the ability to reason that is. Grouping these together with no other words justifying the position leads one to make the connection. Again, one with reading comprehension that is. One must consider how their words will read online to strangers as well as what they are thinking at the time they wrote them. How they put them together, how they will be perceived. He did not put this line following a new branching direction of conversation concerning who is responsible for gun crimes, as in the mentally ill. He followed his comment about me with those words standing alone then left conclusions trailing as to meaning by the .... As if to say 'guess what I am really thinking/concluding'.

I see this as accusation directed at me. You can see it however you choose. He may have meant who knows what the way he posted it in the order he did. In any case as I said one must look at their posts in light of how others who unlike you hissy cannot read minds may perceive them as well as what they were thinking which only they* really know. *I assume you also from your implied mind reading abilities since you are answering for another what their thoughts were when posting.

Number one while the premise may hold that a few mentally ill have done violence, the greatest majority were not mentally ill. How else do you justify the prisons being more filled than institutions if this concept was all encompassing. More filled per capita in the US than any other nation.

By the way you are proving my words correct. "adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.".

Obvious from your focusing not upon the content of my post but rather what you thought was a point you could use to jump in and attack. A point very minor to the post in it's entirety, and one you cannot know for certain (unless you are a mind reader). Typical liberal progressive tactics.
I think you are alone in seeing No Tears Only Dreams Now's response as an attack directed at you. When I looked over the thread, I didn't see anything amiss there either, and was quite surprised to read your retaliation against it. In fact, from the way you reacted to his post it actually makes it look more like you are the one making an ad hominem attack.
Also, the reason that our prisons are so full is because of all of the people who have gotten locked up for having weed, not because so many more sane people are engaging in violent crime.

franklyn - 29-8-2014 at 22:57

There are many places on earth where individuals unauthorized to possess firearms are liable to be summarily shot down by those who are authorized. I urge those who are troubled by Americans authorized to be armed to depart for said destinations and leave us alone. Ours remains a free country , no need to make it less , simply go where you see greener grass. That this may change in the future is simmering in the background , when it does come to a head you 'll wish you had gone.

.

adamsium - 30-8-2014 at 04:15

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
. . . our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to defend themselves.

OTOH, your paranoia might be more easily treated than accidental gunshot wounds!
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.

Yes, I've been learning that more and more lately. It seems that, whilst accidental gunshot wounds may be difficult to treat, treating the bleeding heart of a liberal is a far greater challenge.

hyfalcon - 30-8-2014 at 04:49

Arguing with a liberal is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize that you aren't going to win and he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud.

Amos - 30-8-2014 at 04:53

Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon  
Arguing with a liberal is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize that you aren't going to win and he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud.


This is very true(I can speak from the perspective of the pig here :D)
This is why comedic political satire shows in the United States are mostly run by liberals(Daily Show, Colbert Report) while on the conservative talk shows(Hannity, Bill O'Reilly's) the host often gets frustrated and starts yelling.

hissingnoise - 30-8-2014 at 05:01

Quote:
he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud.

And then, to add to the fun, your head explodes . . . lol


hyfalcon - 30-8-2014 at 11:29

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud.

And then, to add to the fun, your head explodes . . . lol



I've seen the shoe on the other foot also. Especially from the likes of PETA.

aga - 30-8-2014 at 13:31

The main problem with Guns and such as that they are Seen as 'overwhelming force', even by Crowds.

I find it fascinating that we have an instinctive crowd behaviour to things like 'Go This Way' and not a reaction like 'Kill that one who might kill us all'.
Personally, crowds are a thing to be avoided for precisely that reason.

Sure, the Armed attacker would kill maybe 6 of an unarmed crowd if lucky, but the Crowd would then make Mincemeat of him, utterly.

I often consider this conumdrum on Airplanes.
Would anyone else get up and attack a hijacker, whether they recognised the threat or not ?

Unlikely, yet they would shove and jostle to get off the plane quicker.

Perhaps with a few more thousand years of evolution.

TheAlchemistPirate - 30-8-2014 at 14:02

Makes the term "sheeple" take on a even deeper meaning.

HeYBrO - 1-9-2014 at 03:14

Quote: Originally posted by adamsium  
Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator  
Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.


Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?

Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.


Yes, Everybody. How did this thread get onto gun control anyway?

adamsium - 1-9-2014 at 03:32

Quote: Originally posted by HeYBrO  
Quote: Originally posted by adamsium  
Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator  
Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.


Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?

Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.


Yes, Everybody. How did this thread get onto gun control anyway?


No, not everybody.

That much should be obvious.

 Pages:  1