I don't know any such thing, but I'd be happy to review your evidence. Nevertheless, it is, in fact, illegal to run around town pointing a gun at people. Even if you don't shoot anyone. And, in most places, even if it's unloaded. It's even more illegal to randomly shoot your gun in the air, even though its very unlikely to actually injure someone.
There are many analogies and strawmen we can argue with. It's so much more fun to actually discuss the facts at hand.
The nurse--who's now out of involuntary quarantine--was exposed to Ebola. There is no question about that. She, at least initially, had a fever when she returned to this country, the first symptom of the disease. So, if you were King of New Jersey, what would you have done?
First, I would not want to be King of New Jersey (shudder). But since you've thrown up that straw man, I'll bite:
Me? I'd follow the CDC guidance that's based on science. I would not take a health care professional, put her in a tent without shower or other human comforts and tell her she could not leave. I'd especially not "diagnose" her without medical knowledge and a full examination.
If you read the FACTS, her temperature when taken on a regular thermometer was normal. In fact, her original temperature was normal even on the non-contact type until they denied her food and water, failed to giver her information, and let her stew for a couple of hours. When she got to the hospital, the examining doctor proclaimed her normal. Thank goodness that they didn't hospitalize her for high blood pressure, too.
Now, you have agreed that it is illegal to do certain acts with a gun. And I think there's no doubt that there is an epidemic of gun violence in the US. Let's take Virginia Tech as just one example: 32 dead. More injured. The law prohibits purchase of guns by those that are "mentally defective". The gunman purchased the last of his guns shortly before the massacre. He had been judged to be "mentally defective".
By the logic used by the "King of New Jersey" (your words), self-reporting does not work, and therefore it is the government's responsibility to keep us safe. Since the government has no way to know whether an individual might use the gun in a criminal manner to hurt folks, it therefore must take action (such as a month-long quarantine) to observe prospective purchasers so they don't hurt others.
I am not suggesting that we should actually do that, but it is the exact same logical construct used by Mr. Christie. Duly noted that some states have waiting periods and FOID permit processes. They are not the same as state-mandated quarantine and personal observation of someone.
What I find interesting here is that many of the same people who would vociferously oppose those kinds of restrictions are also adamant about travel bans and quarantines for a disease that there is scientific evidence about. It's not like Ebola is new.
It's also interesting to note that there is no quarantine for folks treating patients here in the US, yet the governors of 3 states have taken it upon themselves to quarantine only those returning from overseas. With other epidemics, quarantines have been imposed on those that are actually sick - here, it's an assumption that someone is sick until time proves otherwise.
(Given that the patient has been released, and is subject to reasonable monitoring requirements, it appears that widespread media coverage has caused common sense to prevail. So much of the arguments on both sides become moot.)
I've been reading this is a different strain from Zaire from the beginning, I've even read it Ebola Liberia.
There are several known mutation from Zaire, including the one in the US Patent.