Nobody's arguing for mandatory guns, Link, you're creating strawmen again.
The humor deficit in you curriculum is showing again.
Nobody's arguing for mandatory guns, Link, you're creating strawmen again.
The problem with removing excess sugar from the American diet is that diet is, inherently, a personal choice. While it may be a bad choice, once you allow the government to interfere in personal decisions (which don't affect anyone else), you open the door for a system that can easily be abused to interfere with your life. We've seen time and time again (in Prohibition, in the War on Drugs) how interference in personal choices has always been a costly and ultimately unsuccessful endeavor.
The government intervenes in personal choices all the time. You just happened to cherry pick two examples and give your interpretation. Wearing seatbelts is a personal choice and the government interventions have been a success.
I really doubt if you ban big gulps Colombian cartels, Chicago mobsters, and LA Street gangs are going to take over distribution and murder each other for turf. I personally don't know what effect the ban would have if allowed to go forward. You are still permitted to buy multiple drinks if you really want that volume of sugar water. I think the point is the creep of empty calories is very insidious in the American diet. If you travel you will realize that other countries are not full of crazy gym fanatics and dieters. They just aren't trained to get huge drinks and servings at restaurants. It never occurs to them to gorge themselves. You speak of choice but the average person is not making a conscious choice. Through psychology, marketing, and ignorance they are being trained to engage in unhealthy and harmful behavior. I don't think if you inject someone with heroin for five year in year six if they crave heroin it can be argued to be a "personal choice."