Posted on 10/02/2013 2:10:04 AM PDT by lowbridge
I second your solution.
I second your solution.
And I did not mean to say it twice.
New stoves must comply with emission standards. All commercial outfits selling stoves must sell one of the 600 or so “approved” types. That’s the enforcement.
When an old stove needs replacement that person will need to get an “approved” stove, which from what I have read in other posts, is a better stove in the long run cause it’s more efficient.
This is just like what they did to toilets- SWAT teams did not plow into homes and remove the old, noncompliant toilets, but if you bought a new one from the home improvement store, it would be one of teh low-flush ones.
I think, from looking at what EPA has written, there is nothing preventing a private individual from selling his stove to another citizen, and you can still build your own, you just can’t be in the business of selling them commercially.
If you go where you can read customer comments about those “green” strike anywhere matches, the chemical part on the end has been lessened so much, the match will hardly strike and then burn out very, very, quickly if it does light, so these matches are not regular strike anywhere matches we used to have. So, when they made them strike anywhere, they cut the burning part so much it won't stay lit enough to even catch the material above the fire part on fire.
Bet the EPA would go crazy if they saw us burning wood for our BBQ pit.
I’ll be burning some nice pinon oak this winter on the cold days. Warms up the house real good.
“They are not coming to take any stoves. They are not banning wood stoves. No stove will be confiscated.”
You seem to trust the government, believe what they say. Bad mistake on your part.
That is why you dip them in melted paraffin wax.
The wax will make them waterproof AND make them burn for a long time.
I have an outdoor fireplace and it burns ——WOOD.
“That is why you dip them in melted paraffin wax.
The wax will make them waterproof AND make them burn for a long time.”
And, that is why they are not like our old time regular strike anywhere matches - and I have a big metal can of the regular ones I got before they were taken off the market. With the “approved” matches, you have to alter them to make them somewhat like the old ones.
Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.
“You seem to trust the government, believe what they say. Bad mistake on your part.”
I guess. But if they were really coming with a SWAT team to take your stove, I doubt they’d signal their intent. This is just like the regulations on new toilets.
Did you read any of the regulations on woodstoves?
Except the USDA, FDA, DEA -- any agency involved with the War on Drugs -- the EPA, the DOT, and so forth.
It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'mechanism' they use: the commerce clause.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;Notice that the clause is a list, one which contains foreign-countries, Indian-tribes [which we could term domestic-nations], and the States. This means that the same power that applies to regulating the States is the same power that applies to countries; moreover, the clause is used to justify federal regulations within the States [that is intrastate commerse] by claiming it is impactful of interstate commerce.
If the federal government tried to declare the regulatory power within other countries as it does within the States, that country would rightly regard it as an act of war. If the FedGov were to try enforcing those regulations, that would be the waging of that war… therefore enforcing intrastate regulations is the waging of war upon the several States: Treason.
How does the EPA inform naturally occurring fires of this new regulation and it's bound to present real ball-buster of a problem for the volcanoes.
I guess EPA will provide exemptions just as Obamacare provides waivers from its onerous provisions.
However, it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection of the laws. How is there equal protection of the laws when Obama points to A, B, and C and demands they follow the law and then Obama turns to X, Y, and Z and tell them they don't need to follow the law.
When I asked for the health care bill Washington kept sending me copies of some Muslims birth certificate to burn. I am not sure but I think it was from Kenya.
If I may: I have a brother who was incredibly defiant of authority, I saw that this would land him in trouble if he continued that path. When he turned 17 [or was it 18] I took him to the Marine recruiter (for his birthday, no less) and let the recruiter give his pitch: I figured that the Marines would either solve his authority-problem or galvanize it… as it turns out it solved it [for the most part] and now that he's out he's pursuing [probably] a paramedic job.
My point is that sometimes it takes something thoroughly unpleasant to get through to [some] people... and sometimes it becomes clear that you-yourself cannot help them because they refuse to be helped. I think that's, overall, the position America finds itself in. (We've been warned about our finances since Clinton, at least... and what have we done?)
***************************
Is that a rhetorical question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.