Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Decepticon Spike wrote:well , if parents would use common sense, and stop their kids from putting toys in their mouths, trying to eat them, there would be no need for these type of laws.

Wow...you obviously don't have kids to say something that ignorant...

Simply astounding...

Scaleface wrote:
Actually what you say with sarcasm, I say with conviction. "How dare the US gov't try to protect children from the potential brain damage caused by lead paint." It's none of their slagging business and it's a waste of my cash and the freedom of a toy company to choose how to do it's business. Such safety concerns should be driven by the free markets not a few scared parents and a pushy couple of congressmen.

And just exactly how are parents supposed to know if the toy is damaging to their child in that way? It's not like they come with labels that say "Oh by the way this toy will **** up your kid so consider yourself warned!" I'm pretty goddamn glad there is some sort of agency that's looking out for this stuff... and if the "free markets" you have so much faith in were actually doing their jobs, there wouldn't be a need for government intervention...

Don't get me wrong...At times I think toy safety-laws go a little far...I don't know any kid that ever stabbed himself in the eye with Optimus Primes shoulders...But lead-paint is severely damaging and dangerous (especially for children) and illegal to use on toys in this country...

If there was a need for this sort of testing, toy companies can form groups that voluntarely test for such things and label them. I could easily see some sort of "tested lead free" sticker that sme companies could come up with, or a consumers reports type group. Thing is it would be VOLUNTARY. When a person goes to buy a toy they would then decided if lead was a concern and putchase a toy that is "certified lead free" or not. If a parent has a toddler that chews things, he might look for this on the package. If I'm buying a TF for myself, or for a teenage kid who doesn't chew things, I wouldn't care to check for it. Toy companies would weigh the costs of testing and the target selling group for a toy and decide which toys they want to test and which toys have no real demand for it.

It's called freedom of, please respect it. I can't stand when some liberal minded, saftey conscious busy body decids to wipe their jack boots on the freedom of others in the name of "keeping children safe." You have no right to make LEGAL demands on others for your over-extended idea of public safety. I won't be wishy washy about it - I take great offense at the attacks on the free market this sort of law represents.

Scaleface wrote:If there was a need for this sort of testing, toy companies can form groups that voluntarely test for such things and label them. I could easily see some sort of "tested lead free" sticker that sme companies could come up with, or a consumers reports type group. Thing is it would be VOLUNTARY. When a person goes to buy a toy they would then decided if lead was a concern and putchase a toy that is "certified lead free" or not. If a parent has a toddler that chews things, he might look for this on the package. If I'm buying a TF for myself, or for a teenage kid who doesn't chew things, I wouldn't care to check for it. Toy companies would weigh the costs of testing and the target selling group for a toy and decide which toys they want to test and which toys have no real demand for it.

It's called freedom of, please respect it. I can't stand when some liberal minded, saftey conscious busy body decids to wipe their jack boots on the freedom of others in the name of "keeping children safe." You have no right to make LEGAL demands on others for your over-extended idea of public safety. I won't be wishy washy about it - I take great offense at the attacks on the free market this sort of law represents.

Alright...You've made your point and I understand your perspective...It might be different though if you had kids...

I'm not going to keep fighting about this because it's off-topic anyway...

I have NINE nieces and nephews who I love greatly, and I only get them toys appropriate to their age.

Scaleface wrote:I have NINE nieces and nephews who I love greatly, and I only get them toys appropriate to their age.

But what happens if they share, some of the older kids toys, and younger kids. If they are not all lead free tested, then you have problems that you may not have considered having.

I am not sure I see an issue with lead paint standards and testing if it so severely can impair a child, or why anyone else would.

Children are our most precious natural resource. Why would you not do everything within your power, or want everything there to protect them.

I understand we have a government with its nose in everything, passing laws that are practically impossible for so many different areas. I teach. NCLB has just made things even worse for districts who are already money deprived, and trying to teach children the right way, but now we have to teach them how to test, and what will be on the test.

The issue is not the law or the standards, it's the overactive government feeling the need to get into everything, and take away so many private choices, and basically taking the word privacy, and choice out of our vocabulary.

But, in this case, I believe the law is a good one, and is something the government should concern themselves in.

I already take into account household that have a mix of children and toddlers.

The issue is not whether lead is a good thing in children's toys. It's whether you respect basic freedoms of association and the free market or want to live in a world where the government babysits your kids for you.

If you are concerned with lead, then only purchase toys from companies who have strict anti-lead policies and testing. Hasbro was very proud of the fact that they have NOT had any lead issues through the whole lead scare last year. They already had matters in hand. The draconian laws prohibiting the sale of any untested children's product are unAmerican. They are yet another extension of the socialist nanny state. No amount of "it's for the kids safety, you don't want to see kids hurt do you?" will excuse it.

How dare anyone use the false arguement of protecting babies to shove socialism down our throats at the point of a government rifle. You see that's what you do when you pass these laws. You decide that something is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed to be done under any circumstance, and if anyone tries it they should be jailed. I am NOT convinced that the sale of a cheap baseball that hasn't been tested for lead content in a dollar store to a teenager is such a dangerous thing that the seller of the baseball should put in jail. If you are in favor of this new law, you think he should be jailed. It's that simple.

Agreed.

I think that if they made Human Alliance Prime he could come with Sam in his final battle clothes (with damage) and the cast on his hand. Prime could have some nice features as well. For instance:
-Both guns that come from his back
-Attachable and detachable swords and battle hooks(so they don't get in the way of transformation)
-Sliding Mask

primebot96 wrote:8) I think that if they made Human Alliance Prime he could come with Sam in his final battle clothes (with damage) and the cast on his hand. Prime could have some nice features as well. For instance:
-Both guns that come from his back
-Attachable and detachable swords and battle hooks(so they don't get in the way of transformation)
-Sliding Mask

They haven't squeezed all that into a leader class yet. So far they've used small vehicles for this line so a truck is unlikely as it'd either be huge or out of scale with everthing else.

Mykltron wrote:They haven't squeezed all that into a leader class yet. So far they've used small vehicles for this line so a truck is unlikely as it'd either be huge or out of scale with everthing else.

Can't imagine it would be nearly as cool as leader Prime anyhow... The HA aspects would likely lead to a disappointing bot mode.

Kibble wrote:

Mykltron wrote:They haven't squeezed all that into a leader class yet. So far they've used small vehicles for this line so a truck is unlikely as it'd either be huge or out of scale with everthing else.

Can't imagine it would be nearly as cool as leader Prime anyhow... The HA aspects would likely lead to a disappointing bot mode.

If they'd omitted the electronics in the leader they could have easily given him a realistic interior.