TexasCHLforum.com

koine2002 wrote: It is against the law (since 2005) to sell any sort of contact lens (whether cosmetic, corrective, or otherwise).

Really, then I wonder how all these places that sell them are still in business? It's not like they're hiding the fact, they even take out ads for them.

These devices present significant risks of eye injuries, including blindness, if distributed without a valid prescription and the involvement of a qualified eye care professional and appropriate follow-up care.

People drown all the time. We should start requiring a prescription for water to keep them safe.

KD5NRH wrote:

These devices present significant risks of eye injuries, including blindness, if distributed without a valid prescription and the involvement of a qualified eye care professional and appropriate follow-up care.

People drown all the time. We should start requiring a prescription for water to keep them safe.

Prescriptions aren't about safety, they're about money --ensuring a revenue stream for doctors and keeping prices high for pharma companies. One of the most deadly drugs out there, acetaminophen, is sold OTC. I agree though, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to protect people from themselves. How about people just being responsible for themselves for a change. Oh yeah, progressivism is all about eliminating responsibility and accountability.

VMI77 wrote:Oh yeah, progressivism is all about eliminating responsibility and accountability.

... and liberty.

VMI77 wrote: Prescriptions aren't about safety, they're about money --ensuring a revenue stream for doctors and keeping prices high for pharma companies.

It's funny that you say that while totally ignoring the family member who is permanently damaged by a illegal non prescription device.

Well, see what you started TAM? National Park Service, being a part of the USDA, might have a need to have their park rangers armed with those things. With all the drug growing in the national parks, and the associated criminal activity in those parks, and the ensuing confrontations & violence in those circumstances, I can believe that they may be justified in allocating those arms to the folks who have a REAL need to have them, in those circumstances. After all, aren't Texas Game Wardens afforded the function of law enforcement? Of course they are! And they do a stellar job! So why not arm the national version of our Game Wardens with the same tools to combat the violence that we see in Texas Parks?(if our Game Wardens don't have them, then they sure NEED them!) I have no problem with that. None at all. That's how I see it. If there is a different agenda there that I don't see.....well, I don't see it. I don't see a greater conspiracy there to limit, or infringe on, or curtail, or Heaven forbid, end the common citizen's ability or right to defend themselves. I firmly believe that will not happen. Nope. Never. And that's what I've garnered out of this conversation. So.....I say give it to them.

As the thread has morphed into a fake contact lens debate, just let me say for those who have been blessed with good vision, and have never had to wear contact lenses, poorly made contacts, that you are blessed, but they DO actually present a significant eye health to the wearer. Ever had an eye abrasion because of a bad contact? Very painful! Like Holding your eyelids open, pouring sand in your eye and rubbing the sand into your cornea. It can cause blindness, or long term eye injury from which you would never recover. I know.....I've experience 2 of them. Thank GOD I had very competent ophthalmologists who treated me both times. And this was 50 years ago! No, no fake contacts, just poorly made contacts. So I support the ban on the fake contacts. Or what ever you want to call them. It's a good ruling, IMO.

That's all I have to say and I am unanimous in that decision.

They say you can have freedom or you can have safety. The truth is, you can't have safety even if you reject freedom.

Getting back on topic. If John Q. Public isn't allowed to buy that gun, anybody carrying one is a thug.

Cow, sheep, and goat inspectors don't need fully automatic weapons. Ever.

anygunanywhere wrote:Cow, sheep, and goat inspectors don't need fully automatic weapons. Ever.

Well since the guns were purchased for the IG office not for the animal inspectors you wont have an issue, right?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If any of you are farmers, it may be time to buy body armor.

The USDA wants to see if they work for mowing down crops.

Maybe they are worried about ninja cows?

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Cow, sheep, and goat inspectors don't need fully automatic weapons. Ever.

Well since the guns were purchased for the IG office not for the animal inspectors you wont have an issue, right?

Well I guess my sarcasm didn't quite shine so I will say that my attempt was aimed at the dept of agriculture as a whole. As is typical of pretty much all fed departments they have way overstepped their bounds. Get back to cows, sheep, and goats.

All it takes is for each department/division of the government to request more tax money in their budget so they can set their own police/law enforcement department. Doesn't each division of government need it's own police/law enforcement force? {{{{{{{for the less astute, that was a sarcastic rhetorical question }}}}}}

I just figured the different alphabet agencies would have more jurisdictional power than the FBI to enter and investigate specific areas or property. Their armed agents would also have that power.