"G Farris" wrote in message
...
I do believe that in the times we live in, it is reasonable to expect a
few
new rules, and in fact we should desire to participate in new rulemaking.

Your beliefs are ill-placed. None of the new rules are making us safer, and
the old rules failed to do so not because the rules themselves were
insufficient, but rather because those in charge of implementing them failed
to do so.

If and when the government is availing themselves of *existing* rules, and
if and when those rules prove insufficient, then we can talk about what new
rules to create. But not until then, and when we do, only rules that
actually create a net benefit should be considered.

Not every new rule will make sense to everyone in every case,

Why is it so wrong to expect new rules to make sense? And remember, these
new rules haven't been cases of a new rule not making sense to everyone.
They are examples of new rules not making sense to practically anyone who
has actually taken the time to be educated about the issues (you can fool
lots of ignorant people into thinking the rule makes sense, but those people
are not worthy of consideration).

but then the old ones sometimes didn't either.

Past failure is an excuse for future failure?

I suppose when a building or bridge collapses due to an engineering failure,
we should just say "well, that's the way it goes...let's build the new one
just like we built the old one".

Was I unclear about the fact that I was mocking this particular rule, as
inappropriate? Or is it the word "moderation" or the concept that you find
offensive?

I find your docile willingness to agree to whatever ridiculous government
rulemaking it cares to pursue offensive.

Pete