Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tcostell
And in this specific case they are way over the top in terms of their exaggeration of what the bill actually does and doesn't do, and that allows our enemies to depict us as a bunch of lying idiots.

I would agree that there is probably no way any even remotely reasonable interpretation of the bill would be as bad as what the GOA is describing, but I have observed over the years that it is very unwise to expect the government to interpret laws in even remotely reasonable fashion.

If the provisions for putting people on the "prohibited" list are pushed as hard as possible so as to add as many people as possible, while the government does all it can to ignore the provisions for appealing such placement, would you still think it a good law? Particularly if the government didn't feel limited by what the statute actually said?

I don't care what the bill actually says. What matters is what the government is going to pretend that it says. And experience tells me that while the GOA's predictions on such things may sometimes seem pretty far 'out there', the government's actions are often even more so.

29 posted on 09/05/2007 7:26:11 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
I definitely see your point. Cynicism where government is concerned is always a best practice in my book. And I even agree that there is value in having a purist or two out there always demanding more and being “unreasonable” when it comes time to negotiate. But the GOA spends a lot of time attacking friends as well as enemies and I don’t think that tactic is productive.
38 posted on 09/06/2007 4:10:14 AM PDT by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson