the worst of liberalism

Bfgrn said:
What is and isn't nutritionally healthy for a child is not much of an arbitrary decision.
Click to expand...

Suppose I want my children to eat organic foods and avoid the additives that have been proven to be harmful? Now the gov't takes over and forces them to choose between additives or hunger? That is not in the best interest of my child.


But back to my unanswered question, Bfgrn, are you saying that as long as no one is harmed it cannot be authoritarian????
 
Bfgrn said:
Being a parent doesn't give you ownership of a child. What would or should happen if parents don't feed a kid, or feed him dog food?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact it does. There are laws concerning extreme limits that you cannot do to your child. But you can determine their religion, where they live, who they see, whether they leave the house or not. If they do not receive medical attention, you can be prosecuted. If they break the law you can be held liable.

But if providing a specific lunch is ownership, you are advocating that the gov't has ownership of the child.
 
Bfgrn is unable and unwilling to answer these questions. He will simply parrot a random quote about how conservatives are evil. He's like Watermark, if WM were actually serious. Also, Watermark is original.
 
WinterBorn said:
Suppose I want my children to eat organic foods and avoid the additives that have been proven to be harmful? Now the gov't takes over and forces them to choose between additives or hunger? That is not in the best interest of my child.


But back to my unanswered question, Bfgrn, are you saying that as long as no one is harmed it cannot be authoritarian????
Click to expand...

You make a good point, but you need to go back to my premise. I have Godwin's law throw at me constantly by right wingers over actions that ARE authoritarian and fascist like. What this school is doing does not fit that description. And to call it that should qualify for a REAL Godwin's type law dismissal
 
Bfgrn said:
Translation: Paranoia is rampant in the underdeveloped and child like right wing fear controlled mind.
Click to expand...
Translation: If the government does it, it MUST BE GOOD FOR ME!

Are you saying that incrementalism hasn't played the biggest role in gun control?
 
Bfgrn said:
You make a good point, but you need to go back to my premise. I have Godwin's law throw at me constantly by right wingers over actions that ARE authoritarian and fascist like. What this school is doing does not fit that description. And to call it that should qualify for a REAL Godwin's type law dismissal
Click to expand...
Avoidance. You continue to evade questions because you cannot answer them.
 
King of Guns said:
Translation: If the government does it, it MUST BE GOOD FOR ME!

Are you saying that incrementalism hasn't played the biggest role in gun control?
Click to expand...

Yea, the NRA and lobbyists were able to get Republicans to repeal the ban on assault weapons
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea, the NRA and lobbyists were able to get Republicans to repeal the ban on assault weapons
Click to expand...
Ummm no. It sunset. That was in the original provision of the bill. And the fact that 'assault' weapons were just regular guns with certain 'evil' cosmetic features, kinda made the ban wholly ineffective at stopping... well anything other than law abiding citizens from purchasing various sporting rifles.

I suggest you do more research into gun control if you have any hope of effectively arguing the topic.
 
King of Guns said:
Ummm no. It sunset. That was in the original provision of the bill. And the fact that 'assault' weapons were just regular guns with certain 'evil' cosmetic features, kinda made the ban wholly ineffective at stopping... well anything other than law abiding citizens from purchasing various sporting rifles.

I suggest you do more research into gun control if you have any hope of effectively arguing the topic.
Click to expand...

Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.
 
Bfgrn said:
Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.
Click to expand...

If the 2nd Amendment was written to protect a free peoples right and ability to fight off a tyrannical government, how can you justify a ban on weapons that do just that?
 
Bfgrn said:
Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.
Click to expand...
Define an assault weapon.
 
Bfgrn said:
Dis I say that, or did YOU say that for me? You are a pea brain.
Click to expand...
You failed to answer the question, so I used your prior logical premise, that no one was physically hurt and that a third party government agent is a better judge than you, to presume your answer. And since you've yet to answer the question, or deny it, I'd say my presumption was 100% correct.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If the 2nd Amendment was written to protect a free peoples right and ability to fight off a tyrannical government, how can you justify a ban on weapons that do just that?
Click to expand...

Better start saving your pennies there Wyatt Earp...the government has F-16's, tanks, missiles and aircraft carriers...
 
Bfgrn said:
I did. You need to pay attention.
Click to expand...
Really now? Where?
Bfgrn said:
Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.
Click to expand...
It certainly isn't here. So I ask you define it. Or if you are intellectually unable to do so (as I suspect) then show me one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top