(OT) Sex Education revisited (rant)

S

Seronac

New member
Attn: Moderators, Administrators, those in the know:

OK, I admit that a thread on Sex Education on public schools is a considerable step away from firearms, but it's certainly more of a political subject than Firestone's tire recall! (How does that relate to guns?) Which is why I originally posted it in the Legal and Political Forum!

My intention was this: If the government can sieze control of our children on the sensitive subject sex education, then it's no big step for them to take control when it comes to guns! That sounds like a Legal and Political topic to me!

Therefore: Would someone please explain to me why the General Discussion Forum is a better place for it, and why it is 'pointless'? And what is the justification for censoring me and violating my First Amendment rights on a forum site that is supposed to be dedicated to supporting individual rights!

Basically, I'd like an explanation.

Thank you.

BTW: If my post was offensive or in violation of some rule here, then I apologize. Just please let me know what I did wrong so that I can correct it. Also, I am pretty certain that it was not in violation of any laws, even in my in my very conservative state of Utah!
 
(sigh) Once more, with feeling:

it's certainly more of a political subject than Firestone's tire recall! (How does that relate to guns?)

It doesn't. Neither does the current incarnation of the dog thread, or thread about free ISPs. However, people don't get worked up into foaming rages by proselytizing on tires or dogs.

Would someone please explain to me why the General Discussion Forum is a better place for it, and why it is 'pointless'?

It's "pointless" in the context of RKBA. It got moved to General because it has nothing to do with politics or law, unless you would involve religion in those fields (not a good idea). Besides, would you rather deal with me, Dennis, and Long Path... or DC with her strychnine-coated stiletto?

And finally, the same old argument: the First Amendment -- that is, the right to free expression -- is prefaced with "Congress shall make no law prohibiting...". Last I checked, TFL wasn't the House or Senate. It's Rich's hardware, software, and bandwidth, therefore he makes the rules (which the Staff enforces), just as if we were all in his living room. And as I've pointed out to everyone else who bitches about 1A, if you don't like the way we run TFL, there's nothing to prevent you from starting your own forum, totally free of moderation. Like wreck.guns.

Capische?
 
"just as if this is Rich's living room..."

Hey, next person up, get me another beer, please! :)

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
As a brief aside, chat with a 'sex education' supporter sometime. I'll give you odds that they would oppose firearms safety education in the schools.

Figure that one out ...

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by seronac:
My intention was this: If the government can sieze control of our children on the sensitive subject sex education, then it's no big step for them to take control when it comes to guns! That sounds like a Legal and Political topic to me![/quote]

Seronac, I agree with you, however, your intention, as stated above, was not expressed at all in the original thread. That's basically why it was moved to General, the place for "...general discussion and Member hob-nobbing... for posts that do not fit well in the other, specific Forums." If you had added a comment, like that above, to your post that tied it in with RKBA or some other political or legal subject, it would have been left in L&P.

Coinneach answered the rest of your questions, I think. If you would like to re-post the article in Legal with some kind of tie-in to RKBA or Political manipulation of our children through the schools, feel free. :)


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited August 10, 2000).]
 
Yes, Coinneach answered my questions very well, and he's right: Rich nor TFL are "Congress" (good point, my mistake) and he can do as he pleases with his stuff,. It is true that I am a visitor here, and I apologize for taking things too personally and not being more precise in my purpose. However, I thought it was fairly clear, ansd still believe that it's a very political topic.

Again, my immense thanks to Rich for inviting us into his virtual, online living room.

I won't post the article again, but if someone wants to read it and comment on it, I will be glad to participate in a discussion of the subject. Otherwise, I'll consider it closed and be more careful when I post in the future. However, I would a appreciate a little more tact when shooting down my flags.

Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheBluesMan:
... Coinneach answered the rest of your questions, I think. If you would like to re-post the article in Legal with some kind of tie-in to RKBA or Political manipulation of our children through the schools, feel free. :)
[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top