The original petition to mandate the device would not have made sense unless Steve Gass had not shown that it could be done, that the technology was viable. This type of scenario plays itself out in governmental agencies everyday, some we like, some we don't, and most we of which we are hardly aware. Decisions are made that enrich some and empoverish others.
I doubt anyone here is so naive to think that at least a few of these Washington operatives don't pursue their agenda knowing full well their goals run counter to the interests and safety of most Americans. If nothing else can be said, at least Mr. Gass' invention is designed to make something safer, putting it in the category of a well intentioned initative. His obvious passion for our safety should be enough by itself to temper our cynicism. If his goal was to just make alot of money, he could have found easier ways than developing this device.
Our lives are rife with mandated safety devices, some of which were received contentiously, and that we now take for granted. Electrical circuitry alone has countless safety features. Many of these things are not well received initially and only after time become appreciated. If we are then honest with ourselves we should be willing to admit that they were good ideas that we would not have accepted without mandate.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mark Singer
Or perhaps they were raised for experimentation, in a lab somewhere, fed lots of whole grains and what not. 
.