A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents.

No doubt. Legislation is written all the time and filed away until the public is sufficiently swept away by momentary passion. In the US gun control proponents have cabinets full of bills they pull out, like ghouls, every time there's a school shooting, just as the government has legislation that trims away privacy rights ready to go the next time the head-loppers hit the news.

Ebola is impossible to catch unless you are directly exposed to someone who is symptomatic.

Technically, yes. As doctors define direct exposure that's true. However, doctors and normal people don't define it the same way. If I have Ebola and get bodily fluids on a doorknob, then you come along an hour later, touch the doorknob and then rub your eyes... you can become infected. That fits the CDC's definition of "direct exposure", because you've been directly exposed to my bodily fluids.

So don't get complacent thinking as long as you don't actually touch an infected person you can't become infected.

First of all, we already have a "Czar" for this sort of thing. Her name is Dr. Nicole Lurie. That's the real reason we don't need a "Czar" - we already have one.

Secondly, the president can't give the CDC more funding. That's Congress's job.

Thirdly, in the last fifteen years the CDC budget has doubled, so they already have plenty of money. In fact, they have too much money, which has allowed them to ignore their primary mission and go off and do things like stump for gun control, study why lesbians get fat and gay men don't, and determine most monkeys are right handed.

It wasn't even that. It was illegal to create new embrionic cell lines using federal money. In other words, if you wanted to do stem cell research you could use one of the existing lines, or you could use private money.

The whole controversy was just red meat for abortion supporters. Didn't have anything to do with science.

Modern infantry tactics are all about suppressive fire. Which you can't do with a bolt action rifle. There's a reason everyone uses assault rifles. I would be shocked if the reason this is just happening now isn't just a combination of neglect and lack of funds.

Beyond that, soldiers do carry more stuff. Depending on the situation, a US soldier may have 120-150 pounds ("Emergency Approach March") to carry plus body armor and rifle. There's simply more useful gear than there used to be. Everyone complains about it, but nobody wants to get rid of anything. Soldiers would like to ditch the armor, but they're not allowed to because their commanders don't want to explain to grieving widows (and the press) why Joe wasn't wearing his armor when he got shot.

It's probably even worse in Northern Canada, since you'd have all sorts of extra stuff to deal with the cold.

So yeah, you shave off pounds where you can. Not only is a modern assault rifle lighter than an Enfield (I own one - holding that sucker level from a standing position gets old really fast), more importantly the ammo is much lighter.