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

Anung Un Rama said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think government cares about its core voters and tax base which are disproportionately represented by upper middle class and above - who have kids who could be impacted by guns, or cigs or booze but far removed from the class of people who enlist
 
Shinigami said:
OMG the DNC wants to be our mommies!!! Fuck those overbearing commies. Fuck right off. Go eat some Purina Pet Chow you wannabe infantilizers
Click to expand...
Overbearing? People who text and drive don’t just kill themselves. Anyone who texts and drives doesn’t have the right to complain about infantilizing when they’re doing something infantile and dangerous.

I’m all in favour of babying people who lack maturity, just to make life more pleasant and safe for the rest of us.
 
Since he admits no real intention of having this law passed and that he’s engaged in a PR stunt, I can’t get too bothered by it.

The people who do this shit and then lie about it being a stunt (cough green-new-deal cough) can eat a bag of dicks.
 
To be totally honest I would like to go back to pre smartphone days.
 
tonni said:
Overbearing? People who text and drive don’t just kill themselves. Anyone who texts and drives doesn’t have the right to complain about infantilizing when they’re doing something infantile and dangerous.

I’m all in favour of babying people who lack maturity, just to make life more pleasant and safe for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

But caving to the minority also punishes the majority. If 30% of people can't handle something why should the rules be extended to the 70% who can?
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
But caving to the minority also punishes the majority. If 30% of people can't handle something why should the rules be extended to the 70% who can?
Click to expand...
I’d rather be punished with not having a phone in the car or whatever than be punished by some retard with no sense of responsibility and the urgent need to see what his other dumbass friends posted on facebook.
 
My life was better before the cell phone. when I went to high school only the rich kids had them so you didn't need them. Now everyone has one so you need them. People don't interact anymore because of the damn things.
 
It’s my personal freedom to text and drive and crash into your car with your family inside, please dont baby me
 
tonni said:
I’d rather be punished with not having a phone in the car or whatever than be punished by some retard with no sense of responsibility and the urgent need to see what his other dumbass friends posted on facebook.
Click to expand...

It's not just banning phones from cars, it would be banning phones from anyone under 20 from owning a phone at all. That's punishing the majority of young adults and teens who can handle a phone responsibily. Also, by your logic, the largest age group for texting and driving accidents are 20-29. So maybe we shouldn't be able to own a phone until youre 30?

Oh, don't forget that a large number of distracted driving accidents involve food and non alcoholic beverages, so ban coffee too
 
Lord Coke said:
My life was better before the cell phone. when I went to high school only the rich kids had them so you didn't need them. Now everyone has one so you need them. People don't interact anymore because of the damn things.
Click to expand...

He said posting on an internet forum
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
It's not just banning phones from cars, it would be banning phones from anyone under 20 from owning a phone at all. That's punishing the majority of young adults and teens who can handle a phone responsibily. Also, by your logic, the largest age group for texting and driving accidents are 20-29. So maybe we shouldn't be able to own a phone until youre 30?

Oh, don't forget that a large number of distracted driving accidents involve food and non alcoholic beverages, so ban coffee too
Click to expand...
Honestly I think there's too many people driving.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
That's a good thing, it means all those people typically have jobs and responsibilities
Click to expand...
Most people use their cars to drive pretty short distances, in Belgium at least. And I don't really care, if you've ever driven with people going to work (at least the ones I've driven with), you would know that a lot of people are way too dumb/slow/irresponsible to drive a 1 ton missile going at 120 km/h.

I'd prefer some dumbass loses his job than him killing some innocent people.
 
Only in America can you be a child at 20
 
tonni said:
Most people use their cars to drive pretty short distances, in Belgium at least. And I don't really care, if you've ever driven with people going to work (at least the ones I've driven with), you would know that a lot of people are way too dumb/slow/irresponsible to drive a 1 ton missile going at 120 km/h.

I'd prefer some dumbass loses his job than him killing some innocent people.
Click to expand...

I think that's just your misanthrope speaking
 
Since most of you didn't even read the article and understand the context you should probably stop reading. The real topic is guns in Vermont.

I am not saying guns in America - I am saying guns in Vermont.

I was lucky enough to live there for the transition that this Senator is talking about.

For context you need to understand that Vermont has always been a bunch of hippies with guns. That is the stereotype that has endured from the days of the Green Mountain Boys. It is rural. Like very rural. There are about 600k people in the whole state. A lot of them are centered in Burlington, which is right across the lake from NY. And that city is growing quickly. From residents of NY.

But what is most notable about Vermont, besides being a state full of guns, is that it has ZERO gun crime. In fact, almost no violent crime. Think about that for a moment - ZERO gun crime. So about 2 years ago they went full draconian on its gun laws. Because - well. Because uhhh you know. NY and Mass. And uhhh. Well...because they couldn't explain it. The governor went full progressive stupid. We created a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Which is funny because he was a republican in a democrat state. Re-election?

The laws that went into effect were the 21 year old requirement. Magazine capacity restrictions. All whole bunch of other nonsense.

The entire culture of the state, and perhaps society itself, is changing. Rise of the nanny state. Personal responsibility isn't valued.
 
Madmick said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's a part of everyday life now. For jobs etc. Not practical imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,092
Messages
55,467,272
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top