Vermont Dem Senator Proposes Setting Age Restriction Of Minimum 21 Years Old For Cell Phone Purchase

[JudoThrowFiasco]

A Vermont state senator has proposed a total ban on cellphones for anyone under 21 years old.

Democratic Sen. John Rodgers proposed a bill that would effectively ban cellphone use and possession for residents under 21 because, he told CNN, "cellphones are just as dangerous as guns."

He knows it won't make it past the judiciary committee.

Im not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."

That point: In Vermont, it's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a firearm. Rodgers suggested that the same age restrictions should apply to cellphone use.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ermont-senator-cell-phone-ban-trnd/index.html

______________

Surely there is a less headline grabbing way for this guy to make a point without creating and introducing a bill just to make a show of his terrible thought Not sure the state legislature should be used as a soap box for empty bills just to bring attention to superficial points. Someone introduce him to sherdog.

Really, guns as dangerous as cell phones based on human brain development is a really stupid connection and I say this as someone who believes in individual rights to own firearms.

 

[HockeyBjj]

It's parents buying kids their first phones and paying for them. Really, one is practically needed for safety by 16 assuming they're getting a drivers liscense by then.

 

[luckyshot]

A Vermont state senator has proposed a total ban on cellphones for anyone under 21 years old.

Democratic Sen. John Rodgers proposed a bill that would effectively ban cellphone use and possession for residents under 21 because, he told CNN, "cellphones are just as dangerous as guns."

He knows it won't make it past the judiciary committee.

Im not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."

That point: In Vermont, it's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a firearm. Rodgers suggested that the same age restrictions should apply to cellphone use.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ermont-senator-cell-phone-ban-trnd/index.html

______________

Surely there is a less headline grabbing way for this guy to make a point without creating and introducing a bill just to make a show of his terrible thought Not sure the state legislature should be used as a soap box for empty bills just to bring attention to superficial points. Someone introduce him to sherdog.

Really, guns as dangerous as cell phones based on human brain development is a really stupid connection and I say this as someone who believes in individual rights to own firearms.

This is not what Vermont is about.


This is what Vermont is about:

 

[Ruprecht]

I'd be perfectly happy with a ban on mobile phones.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

should've went with driver's licence

still stupid enough to make his point but doesn't make him look stupid personally

 

[ShadowRun]

Shocker a Democrat

 

[Madmick]

A Vermont state senator has proposed a total ban on cellphones for anyone under 21 years old.

Democratic Sen. John Rodgers proposed a bill that would effectively ban cellphone use and possession for residents under 21 because, he told CNN, "cellphones are just as dangerous as guns."

He knows it won't make it past the judiciary committee.

Im not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."

That point: In Vermont, it's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a firearm. Rodgers suggested that the same age restrictions should apply to cellphone use.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ermont-senator-cell-phone-ban-trnd/index.html

______________

Surely there is a less headline grabbing way for this guy to make a point without creating and introducing a bill just to make a show of his terrible thought Not sure the state legislature should be used as a soap box for empty bills just to bring attention to superficial points. Someone introduce him to sherdog.

Really, guns as dangerous as cell phones based on human brain development is a really stupid connection and I say this as someone who believes in individual rights to own firearms.

How many people died last year from automotive accidents because they were texting? How many from the ages of 16-21 in comparison to those who died from guns (discounting suicide) aged 16-21?

I think the guy has a point.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

How many people died last year from automotive accidents because they were texting? How many from the ages of 16-21 in comparison to those who died from guns (discounting suicide) aged 16-21?

I think the guy has a point.

The variable there is while driving. And that doesn't go away with age.

Why discount suicide when you're adding a 3rd variable with driving and texting

 

[Anung Un Rama]

should've went with driver's licence

still stupid enough to make his point but doesn't make him look stupid personally

Should’ve went with age to enlist.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Shocker a Democrat

Is that a dare?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Should’ve went with age to enlist.

Why? The other two are measures from preventing people from dying while enlisting falls under not caring

 

[Madmick]

The variable there is while driving. And that doesn't go away with age.

Why discount suicide when you're adding a 3rd variable with driving and texting

No, you can't dismiss driving as the "variable" with all that we know about rates of accidents while texting. It's more dangerous than drinking and driving. You can't dismiss the deaths caused by drunk driving by saying, "Driving is the variable".

Teens in particular abuse texting while driving. If an 18-year-old can't own a gun, then maybe an 18-year-old shouldn't be allowed to own a cell phone. Like I said: he has a point.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why? The other two are measures from preventing people from dying while enlisting falls under not caring

Enlisting = not caring?

Maybe I’m misinterpreting his point, but it seems to be that he disagrees with the age at which one can legal procure a firearm in VT. He feels 21 is too strict. If he really wants to be bold then have people realize that one need only be 18 to enlist and get shipped off to war. That would be if he wants to be taken seriously instead of laughed at.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No, you can't dismiss driving as the "variable" with all that we know about rates of accidents while texting. It's more dangerous than drinking and driving. You can't dismiss the deaths caused by drunk driving by saying, "Driving is the variable".

Teens in particular abuse texting while driving. If an 18-year-old can't own a gun, then maybe an 18-year-old shouldn't be allowed to own a cell phone. Like I said: he has a point.

Suicide makes the biggest component of death by gun, can't dismiss that either

The biggest age demographic for texting and driving is 20-29. So raise the age to 30?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Enlisting = not caring?

Maybe I’m misinterpreting his point, but it seems to be that he disagrees with the age at which one can legal procure a firearm in VT. He feels 21 is too strict. If he really wants to be bold then have people realize that one need only be 18 to enlist and get shipped off to war. That would be if he wants to be taken seriously instead of laughed at.

Drinking, cigs and cell phones are variables in which we are trying to save youth from death. Enlisting for military service doesn't have the same view of preventing death. Governments and suburbanites do not really care if those people die

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Drinking, cigs and cell phones are variables in which we are trying to save youth from death. Enlisting for military service doesn't have the same view of preventing death. Governments and suburbanites do not really care if those people die

Of course they care if they die, they’re just not dying in the numbers that texting and driving cause (not even close to being close) so it flies under their radar. But that is beside the point, this person isn’t trying to save lives, he’s trying to show the age limit on firearms ownership is ridiculous. A better way to do that would be to remind people that 18 yo enlist and fight in wars, they should be able to buy a guy.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Of course they care if they die, they’re just not dying in the numbers that texting and driving cause (not even close to being close) so it flies under their radar. But that is beside the point, this person isn’t trying to save lives, he’s trying to show the age limit on firearms ownership is ridiculous. A better way to do that would be to remind people that 18 yo enlist and fight in wars, they should be able to buy a guy.

Not sure you should be able to buy a guy at any age.

But, no since most governments set age of enlistment lower than drinking, or smoking I would say they dont really care about the fate of those who enlist.

I see your point, I just don't think it resonates with most of the populace.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not sure you should be able to buy a guy at any age.

But, no since most governments set age of enlistment lower than drinking, or smoking I would say they dont really care about the fate of those who enlist.

I see your point, I just don't think it resonates with most of the populace.

I disagree about buying guns, but I’m not arguing for the guy or his bill, either.

And the government cares about people dying en masse, its bad for business, they’re just hypocrites.

 

[Letssnuggle]

I support mobil phone bans.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Shinigami]

A Vermont state senator has proposed a total ban on cellphones for anyone under 21 years old.

Democratic Sen. John Rodgers proposed a bill that would effectively ban cellphone use and possession for residents under 21 because, he told CNN, "cellphones are just as dangerous as guns."

He knows it won't make it past the judiciary committee.

Im not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."

That point: In Vermont, it's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a firearm. Rodgers suggested that the same age restrictions should apply to cellphone use.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ermont-senator-cell-phone-ban-trnd/index.html

______________

Surely there is a less headline grabbing way for this guy to make a point without creating and introducing a bill just to make a show of his terrible thought Not sure the state legislature should be used as a soap box for empty bills just to bring attention to superficial points. Someone introduce him to sherdog.

Really, guns as dangerous as cell phones based on human brain development is a really stupid connection and I say this as someone who believes in individual rights to own firearms.

OMG the DNC wants to be our mommies!!! Fuck those overbearing commies. Fuck right off. Go eat some Purina Pet Chow you wannabe infantilizers