Reply #2: We keep hearing about "common sense regulations" and the "scientific consensus"

[Howzit]

Any questioning of the idea that global warming is a problem that must be dealt with by reducing fossil fuel consumption is labeled the regurgitation of Republican talking points; any hint that gun ownership is not shameful is labeled right wing propaganda.

These political comebacks suggest that the panic over global warming and the drive to reduce civilian gun ownership are indeed motivated more by politics than science.

Any politician that starts a speech with "we must act now before it is too late" is suspect, in my opinion. The last time the US "acted now" got us into Iraq, with a legacy that will go on forever.

Signing international treaties, be-it to control guns or gasses must not be entered into lightly because there will be no going back once the horse has left the barn.

It is interesting to me that politicians who are eager to sign gun control laws that limit and punish law abiding gun owners without any hope of reducing crime are also eager to sign laws into being that would raise the cost of energy for the average person in the name of saving the planet. Even if the Kyoto protocol had been fully implemented as originally written, it would have reduced global temperatures by only a fraction of one degree. Why so much cost and effort to achieve so little; both with guns and gasses? I smell a rat.