I think the backdoor policies to limit firearms are on thier minds in some way. Particularily i am curious about the EPA looking into the environmental impacts of lead
, being a viable reason to curtail firearms in national parks, and what ramifications that might have for national forests, and of course...elsewhere. International treaties(see CIFTA, Harold Koh, etc) and EPA rulings as US guidelines regarding small arms, ammunition, etc seem to be the modus operandi. Stock of ammo being ruled as explosive material or needing regulation seems to have been justified in Arizona after Katrina, by Gov Napolitano to implement legislation providing for the supervision and movement of same...for the public safety
. Also wouldn't omit National Healthcare Database
having a possible effect on privacy and/or gun ownership further down the road.
Overall...i get just a kooky feeling about the justifications, disinformation, and methods/logic of the folks currently minding the store. I mean, if the last 100 days are any guideline, i fully expect congress to inform us that the color blue has been deemed to cause 90% of the eye cancer in fruit flies
so it can't be worn openly.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's like watching the teletubbies lately.
Rationalize, then nationalize, that's my mantra. As far as Elliot Spitzer and that quote goes, i think he wants someone to legislate prostitution so he won't be responsible for his own actions, and maybe even provide bailouts? Frankly the problem of the first part "difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes
" doesn't jive with the solution of the second "require
vendors to change their behavior?" It's just more teletubby la-la, unless oversight
is his proposed answer. *see mantra.
if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?