Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: gardencatz; Sola Veritas; EEGator
RE :”Not having a computer would solve the problem. Locking the computer with a password when/if kids are home alone costs nothing. The left continually argues that the government should take care of this or that so we don’t have to pay for it. Our children are ours. If it requires an extra expense, so be it.

Handing your child a computer and internet with no controls (which are easily available to get) and then demanding that the Feds censor it to protect them for you is like handing your kid a loaded handgun with the safety on and then demanding federal gun control laws to protect him from it.

119 posted on 03/18/2012 9:52:22 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: sickoflibs

It takes one minute to set up a password lock, and the material filter. Nanny state people are as annoying as dems. They want more government, same as dems.


123 posted on 03/18/2012 9:57:01 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: sickoflibs; All

“Handing your child a computer and internet with no controls (which are easily available to get) and then demanding that the Feds censor it to protect them for you is like handing your kid a loaded handgun with the safety on and then demanding federal gun control laws to protect him from it.”

I disagree. The porn should not be easily available...the internet is public domain (like the air waves) and subject to Federal Regulation because it is “interstate.” The “handgun” analogy is ludricrous and flawed. Firearm possesion is protected by the 2nd Ammendment. Also, a loaded firearm presents an obvious, except to a total moron, a clear danger to a child. Pornography is not so clear to many in the degraded world we live in....although it does present a danger on many levels - but not an immediate threat to life.

I’m sick to my soul of IDIOTS that defend pornography as a 1st Ammendment Right. That was NEVER the intention of the framers...they were concerned about protecting religious and political discourse....not prurile entertainment. Fears about restrictions on pornography at the federal level where it CONSTITUTIONALLY belongs is just plain paranoia. Plus, it cannot spill over to political and religious discourse because those are protected by the constitution. The “slippery slope” falacy is being used extensively on this issue.

I’m NOT saying this is YOUR position, but I suspect that those that yell the most about restrictions on porn are those most addicted and perversely affected by it....they don’t want their supply of prurile entertainment repressed....regardless of the negative effects it is having on our culture. There is NOTHING conservative about protecting Porn....that is pure LIBERTARIAN manure and NOT conservative. Libertarians are afraid of a slipery slope regarding Porn but don’t see a real slippery slope on gateway drug use leading to harder/dangerous abuse. An amazing hypocracy.

I have checked Santorum’s website to see what he is actually proposing. He just wants to enforce existing laws...and will pick an AG who will do so.


165 posted on 03/19/2012 8:12:30 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson