By Steve Loos

In this latest example of the nanny state mentality comes a ridiculous story.
New York State Senator Carl Kruger has proposed banning iPods and the use of
other electronics at crosswalks. The reasoning behind this feel-good
legislation is the claim that pedestrians are increasingly distracted by iPods, cell
phones and Blackberries, allegedly resulting in a rise in traffic accidents. Although
Kruger did not produce any statistics, he cited a recent death of a 23 year-old
Brooklyn man who, while listening to an iPod walked into the path of a bus.

Kruger stated "I think it's necessary if we just look at the statistics that
bear out the argument that people while being too into their electronic
gadgetry are tuning out the rest of the world. They are becoming a statistical
fatality, they are being part of an accident scene. They are basically
jeopardizing their well-being as well as the well-being of others around them."

No matter how well-intentioned this legislation is, it cannot take the place
of common sense. One of the first lessons children are taught is too look
both ways before crossing the street. If we ignore this basic safety precaution
then we may have to suffer the consequences. As an NRA instructor I always
teach my students to be situationally aware at all times. This is a mindset
that must be developed. Walking around in condition white, oblivious to ones
surroundings, is a dangerous prospect. More unnecessary laws will not save people
from themselves.

If we agree that stupidity cannot be cured by legislation, then we must ask ourselves what might be the real reason behind this kind of law?

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

By Geoffrey Norman
National Review Online

Rudolph Giuliani has a problem with guns.

Seems that when he was cleaning up New York, Sheriff Giuliani took a hard line on hoglegs. ...As part of his campaign to make the streets safe, Giuliani’s administration sued 30 American arms manufacturers, and his police commissioner proposed a nationwide system of registration under which citizens would be required to demonstrate good moral character and a reason for owning a gun.

...Now that Giuliani is among the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination, the question is: Will his antigun record be a deal-breaker, especially with the kind of people who tend to vote in primaries.

...Would any of us vote for him?

Hard to say. If he changed his views on gun control once, what is to keep him from changing them again? Either the law is clear or it isn’t. When something is a “right,” it should not be contingent on one man’s shifting political ambitions and jurisdictions. That kind of “right” isn’t much of one at all, and people who believe in the right to bear arms think of it as a whole lot more substantial and fundamental than that.

Rudy Bumpo could kill a buck, eat its liver, and have his face painted with the animal’s blood, and there would probably still be a lot of people who wouldn’t buy it.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at National Review Online.