To: IbJensen
Should be noted (as always) that the company that owns the patent on this technology is the primary customer of the law firm that authored the legislation in the States.
What better way to sell a product that nobody wants by passing a law requiring that product.
Can you say conflict of interest? I knew you could.
5 posted on
04/20/2009 2:37:01 PM PDT by
Domandred
(Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
To: Domandred
This is a case of a company inventing a technology that nobody wants and trying to force adoption using political cronies. It's every bit as stupid as "microstamping" cartridges with chambers and firing pins. That's another loser. Ditto for "ballistic databases". All are failed technologies. All are easily defeated. They do nothing except drive up the cost of firearms and ammunition.
14 posted on
04/20/2009 2:43:50 PM PDT by
Myrddin
To: Domandred
What better way to sell a product that nobody wants by passing a law requiring that product.
Can you say conflict of interest? I knew you could....
Here in Texas, people do not need helmets to ride motorcycles.
Legislation was passed at the urging of the bicycle helmet mfg. So you need one for a bike but not for a Motorcycle.
To: Domandred
Should be noted (as always) that the company that owns the patent on this technology is the primary customer of the law firm that authored the legislation in the States. What better way to sell a product that nobody wants by passing a law requiring that product. Can you say conflict of interest?
I can say it three times:
Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of Interest.
I figure the horrible truth deserves to be repeated.
24 posted on
04/20/2009 2:52:58 PM PDT by
TheThinker
(Obama giggles at America's problems.)
To: Domandred
"Should be noted (as always) that the company that owns the patent on this technology is the primary customer of the law firm that authored the legislation in the States... What better way to sell a product that nobody wants by passing a law requiring that product." That is a bvasic tenet of mine. Since lawyers are technically officers of the court, they belong to the judicial branch of government, and their participation in the legislative or executive branches (other than as staff counsel) is at it's very core, a conflict of interest.
39 posted on
04/20/2009 3:13:10 PM PDT by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson