I destill from the more recent posts that Obama should not be allowed to discuss gun control because that drives gun sales up? And this coming from people who think they should be more or less unrestricted. Don't drown in your own crocodile's tears, guys.
Whenever ANY administration wishes to tackle an issue by introducing new regulations, people react that way and try to hoard whatever they believe to need before the new regime takes hold. Tax advisors, attorneys, subsidies specialists make a living out of these pre-legislative-change-surges, always have, always will. Now some people here obviously wish to draw from that effect that government should give up announcing, steering and implementing new policies at all. That is tantamount to surrendering a government's role and duty to effect change where necessary to "keeping everything as it is, no matter how bad". "Don't rock the boat" non-politics that is. You guys should spend some time in Afghanistan to relish the lack of a strong central government first hand and enjoy the politcal wisdom of various assorted warlords (whose local power is ironically based on weapons that are more or less freely available to them). I've lived in Africa, I know all about weakish central governments and how they can cripple a country's development.
And I always thought the Union had won the Civil War, not the Confederacy. In essence though a lot of the contributors here argue for a "Confederacy of American States".
Everybody has their own defining collective historic experiences I guess. For you guys the Boston Tea Party seems to have been only yesterday and you are still battling the King, whether he has his throne in London or Washington, for me it's the fact that a German nation only got its act together late in the 19th century.
