`Nanny' Laws Are Added to the Books

When it comes to "Nanny Laws", what the Govt is really banning is parental responsibility.

"Social engenering" via govt laws is not new and is sometimes a good thing.

Smoking is "bad"...TAX IT.
Booze....TAX IT.

Buying gas guzzling vehicles.........Never Mind!

Many of these "NANNY LAWS" are just politicians trying tho make you THINK they care about our future. When in reality, they could not care any less.

If they did, they would institute laws that will change the habits of people to help protect the environment, for example.

What about a law that says you can only SELL these efficient light bulbs in the US?

Detroit must have all vehicles that have a minimum 40 MPG by next year (not 2020).

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't see the parallel. A cop could shoot a kid with a fake gun. It's seems unlikely that a kid playing a video game could get himself killed just by doing so.

See above post....

These are are passed to make us THINK the politician care about children.

I can only recall 1 time (I am sure there are many) cases where a cop killed a child due to a toy gun. That is a pretty good ratio considering toy guns have been around for scores of decades. I think you need to give the police more credit than just a blanket..."THEY MAY KILL A KID".

0 Replies

I'll grant you that most of what politicians do is to make us think we give a ****. And I'm not taking credit from cops. I'm assuming they will do their jobs and sometimes make mistakes and that is someone points a gun at them and it's not obviously fake, a cop will perceive that as a threat.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Although I am generally sympathetic to your opinion in this thread, McG, I'm not sure I have a problem with banning realistic looking fake firearms for the simple reason that it does put the person playing with it in danger.

How does a toy gun put anyone in danger?

Do not mistake the actions of a person wielding a toy gun putting themselves in danger for a 6 year owning a toy gun and playing cowboys and indians.

Legislating away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities is what this thread is about and that is what the Democratic party is doing.

0 Replies

Eh... but laws in regard to product safety already exist. With good reason. Companies have their product safety guidelines as well.

You could just as well argue that a toy truck where the wheels might come off too easily so that kids might choke on them does not really put anyone in danger - it's the kid playing with the toy truck and/or the parents not paying attention.

However, most of us don't object to product callbacks. We usually don't complain about "nanny actions" then, and point out "parental responsibilities".

Which makes me wonder: are people here just complaining because the toys in question are toy guns?

0 Replies

No, you can't make that same argument at all old europe.

A company recalling a defective product has nothing at all to do with a state government banning something.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, you can't make that same argument at all old europe.

A company recalling a defective product has nothing at all to do with a state government banning something.

It would seem that a company recalling a defective product is taking away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities just as much as a government banning a certain way of producing a product.

But in general: do you think it's desirable or undesirable to have the government try to protect consumers against damages or risks posed by certain products?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
No, you can't make that same argument at all old europe.

A company recalling a defective product has nothing at all to do with a state government banning something.

It would seem that a company recalling a defective product is taking away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities just as much as a government banning a certain way of producing a product.

No it's not. It's a defective product which is why they would be recalling it. The company has a responsibility to follow certain guidelines when producing something, but do not have any responsibility for protecting the consumer from their own stupidity. Look at the tobacco industry for example. Their product kills a lot of people every year, yet it remains legal.

There is no way any legislative body can explain why they are banning anything else while tobacco is allowed to continue to be sold.

Quote:

But in general: do you think it's desirable or undesirable to have the government try to protect consumers against damages or risks posed by certain products?

I think the consumer must make their own decisions, yet there has to be a certain amount of trust in that what they are buying is not going to be more dangerous then what it's intended use is. A toy truck is not dangerous. A toy truck the explodes is.

0 Replies

I think the nanny should have to give me an intimate massage when I come home from work every day. Can we put this one to a vote?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Although I am generally sympathetic to your opinion in this thread, McG, I'm not sure I have a problem with banning realistic looking fake firearms for the simple reason that it does put the person playing with it in danger.

How does a toy gun put anyone in danger?

Do not mistake the actions of a person wielding a toy gun putting themselves in danger for a 6 year owning a toy gun and playing cowboys and indians.

But a child is anywhere from 0 to 18. How about a 14 or 15 year old playing gangster?

Quote:

Legislating away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities is what this thread is about and that is what the Democratic party is doing.

You can't legislate away parental responsibility. But maybe you can do something to protect children from their parents lack of acceptance of said responsibility. What is wrong with making sure that toy guns are obviously fake?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Although I am generally sympathetic to your opinion in this thread, McG, I'm not sure I have a problem with banning realistic looking fake firearms for the simple reason that it does put the person playing with it in danger.

How does a toy gun put anyone in danger?

Do not mistake the actions of a person wielding a toy gun putting themselves in danger for a 6 year owning a toy gun and playing cowboys and indians.

But a child is anywhere from 0 to 18. How about a 14 or 15 year old playing gangster?

Quote:
Legislating away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities is what this thread is about and that is what the Democratic party is doing.

You can't legislate away parental responsibility. But maybe you can do something to protect children from their parents lack of acceptance of said responsibility. What is wrong with making sure that toy guns are obviously fake?

"TOY" Guns for the most part do look "fake" and if not they should look fake. 14-15 yr olds playing "GANGSTER"? Well they are old enough to know the difference.

Certain "Social habits" should be regulated where the "habit" can effect the safefty of others, speed limits, hand free car phones, "SIN TAXES".

Yet, some laws just go too far and are un-enforcable (talking on a phone while walking??).

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"TOY" Guns for the most part do look "fake" and if not they should look fake.

But that's what the article was about. Not about banning toy guns, but about making sure they don't look real enough to cause dangerous confusion.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Although I am generally sympathetic to your opinion in this thread, McG, I'm not sure I have a problem with banning realistic looking fake firearms for the simple reason that it does put the person playing with it in danger.

How does a toy gun put anyone in danger?

Do not mistake the actions of a person wielding a toy gun putting themselves in danger for a 6 year owning a toy gun and playing cowboys and indians.

But a child is anywhere from 0 to 18. How about a 14 or 15 year old playing gangster?

Quote:
Legislating away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities is what this thread is about and that is what the Democratic party is doing.

You can't legislate away parental responsibility. But maybe you can do something to protect children from their parents lack of acceptance of said responsibility. What is wrong with making sure that toy guns are obviously fake?

Read it again freeduck.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Read it again freeduck.

Maybe you could point me to what you think I'm missing. I read the whole thing.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No, you can't make that same argument at all old europe.

A company recalling a defective product has nothing at all to do with a state government banning something.

It would seem that a company recalling a defective product is taking away parental responsibilities and personal responsibilities just as much as a government banning a certain way of producing a product.

No it's not. It's a defective product which is why they would be recalling it. The company has a responsibility to follow certain guidelines when producing something, but do not have any responsibility for protecting the consumer from their own stupidity.

Well, what would be those "certain guidelines" they have to follow? Wouldn't those be about the safety of the consumer? And wouldn't they be stricter if it was a product specifically marketed to kids?

McGentrix wrote:

Look at the tobacco industry for example. Their product kills a lot of people every year, yet it remains legal.

Right. But cigarettes are not designed for kids. In fact, you have "nanny laws" in place when it comes to alcohol and tobacco. Do you oppose those as well?

I mean, not allowing shops to sell and companies to market e.g. alcohol to people who are under 21 seems to take away a lot more parental responsibilities as well as personal responsibilities than the toy gun thingie you complain about.

McGentrix wrote:

There is no way any legislative body can explain why they are banning anything else while tobacco is allowed to continue to be sold.

I'm sure the law would allow for people over 21 to buy toy guns that look like real guns. That would solve problem, wouldn't it?

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
But in general: do you think it's desirable or undesirable to have the government try to protect consumers against damages or risks posed by certain products?

I think the consumer must make their own decisions, yet there has to be a certain amount of trust in that what they are buying is not going to be more dangerous then what it's intended use is. A toy truck is not dangerous. A toy truck the explodes is.

Okay, I agree with you here. But these would be extreme examples (perfectly save toy truck vs. exploding toy truck). What about those cases that actually led to recalls: e.g. choking hazards through tiny bits that come off - should something like this be regulated by the government?

0 Replies

N.J. senator proposes toy gun ban
Would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase toy gun
WABC Eyewitness News

(New Jersey- WABC, July 11, 2007) - A New Jersey senator wants to make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under age 18 toy guns that look so realistic they can be mistaken for a real firearm.

"The margin between a child's stupid mistake and a tragic ending is far too thin," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari.

Scutari, D-Union, introduced the proposal in late June and plans to push it when the Legislature reconvenes late this year. He said the bill stems from an incident in a Union Township where four students were suspended after bringing a cap gun to school.

"We need to stress to our children that guns are not toys, but deadly weapons which should always be regarded with extreme caution and handled with respect," Scutari said. "Restricting access to imitation firearms will help to drive that point home."

Gun rights advocates plan to fight the bill.

"It misses the mark because it demonizes toys instead of criminal behavior," said Scott Bach, president of the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs, which is the National Rifle Association's New Jersey organization.

If the measure is enacted, New Jersey would join several states that have restricted access to realistic toy guns to minors.

New York, for instance, got Wal-Mart in 2003 to stop selling toy guns that fail to have a non-removable orange stripe along the barrel. The retailer also agreed to stop selling toy guns in realistic colors such as black, blue and silver and paid $200,000 in civil penalties.

Scutari's bill would make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under 18 and imitation firearm, which is defined as anything "reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm."

The bill is based on a 1987 New Jersey law that bars the sale of hunting, fishing, combat and survival knives with blades of more than five inches to anyone under 18.

Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.

Scutari said the bill would help police and school officials figure out whether a firearm is either fake or real, but Bach said it would intrude upon retailers and parents.

"This bill seeks to intimidate retailers of even toy water pistols rather than to address the bad acts of criminals who use imitation guns in furtherance of crime," Bach said. "A parent who gives a child a toy firearm as a gift would be guilty under this legislation."

0 Replies

I suppose, McG, that you accept some laws (e.g. I hope that you support forbidding murder) but mock abou others as 'nanny laws'.
Right?

In our societies - no matter, what kind of law (Roman or Common Law) we practise in various countries - laws are customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community.

Now, if a majority thinks that such doesn't work anymore - just elect enough lawmakers to change that.

0 Replies

Is your problem with the words "reasonably capable"?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"TOY" Guns for the most part do look "fake" and if not they should look fake.

But that's what the article was about. Not about banning toy guns, but about making sure they don't look real enough to cause dangerous confusion.

I may have missed it but the article does not mention toy guns.

Generally, I would agree we do not need "Nanny Laws", however, there are times and situations it is necessary. Govt should provide safety guidelines and the courts will "govern" liability issues with manufacturers of product that have safety defects when people are injured by an "unsafe" product.

In the BIG PICTURE, the Govt should be more aggressive in "Nanny Laws" relative to environmental issues such as vehicle milage minimums, emmission standards, floresent light bulbs etc... But stay out of my individual "habits". I LIKE FATTY DOUGHNUTS!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I may have missed it but the article does not mention toy guns.

Seemed to me as if this bit here was about toy guns:

Quote:

If the measure is enacted, New Jersey would join several states that have restricted access to realistic toy guns to minors.

New York, for instance, got Wal-Mart in 2003 to stop selling toy guns that fail to have a non-removable orange stripe along the barrel. The retailer also agreed to stop selling toy guns in realistic colors such as black, blue and silver and paid $200,000 in civil penalties.

Scutari's bill would make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under 18 and imitation firearm, which is defined as anything "reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm."

0 Replies

`Nanny' Laws Are Added to the Books

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know