Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina

AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

[JeffAtlanta]

Even assuming incorporation, there's a right to own a dildo in the constitution?

As you know, the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights but rather puts limits on the powers of government.

There is no right listed in the constitution for married couples to have sex either.

[Publius Valerius]

My agenda is Our Federalism. My agenda is a respect for Laboratories of Democracy. As I've noted before, I think there should be no gun laws. Again, in all seriousness, I think a 14 year old girl, with a felony conviction, ought to be able to walk into Home Depot and buy a Browning Automatic Rifle with no taxes to pay, no identification to show, and no waiting period to pass. But, I respect that some people are different than me and that's fine--I choose not to live in those political communities, California included--shoot, I won't even VISIT California.

If you moved to California 50 years ago, sorry about your luck, but if you want to own an assault weapon, it's time to move.

The state has a right to pass legislation--that's all there is to it. If you want to own an assault rifle--if it really bothers you that much--MOVE. Montana is pretty gun friendly, and you can probably sell your house in California and get something a lot nicer there--plus better scenery.

[Publius Valerius]

Jeff, I agree--but presumably, if, as Tpaine said, it is unconstitutional to pass a law banning the sale of dildos, there must be some text in the constitution that supports this.

If you claim it is "unenumerated," I'll point you to my above post, #112 and ask you the same question--where do you draw the line? And how do you rationally and logically draw it?

[JeffAtlanta]

Jeff, I agree--but presumably, if, as Tpaine said, it is unconstitutional to pass a law banning the sale of dildos, there must be some text in the constitution that supports this.

So by your logic a state could ban sex between married adults and it would be perfectly constitutional.

[Publius Valerius]

Sure, but no state would do it and it would obviously be very difficult to enforce.

Moreover, I doubt the People of that State would go along with it--but, if for some reason that's the will of the people, sure.

Also, presumably, if there isn't any state constitutional prohibitions--I speak only to the US constitution.

[tpaine]

The "will of the people" [majority rule] that ignores our Constitution is called democratic tyranny.

Val:

Even assuming incorporation, there's a right to own a dildo in the constitution?

You're really that 'innocent'? Whatta laugh.

Prohibitions on 'toys' are the issue. And there's a right to own all the toys you want in the Constitution. --
It's unenumerated. -- Check out the 9th.

Well, as I noted--it should more accurately be the right to SELL these toys.

Yep, how they can be sold is subject to 'reasonable regulation'.

So the 9th Amendment means that the people can do whatever they want? The 9th Amendment protects gay marriage? It protects sodomy? It protects consentual pedophilia? It protects necophilia? It protects polygamy?

Enjoying your little bit of hype? Get real. States & local governments can write & enforce laws/regs written under constitutional due process.

If not, why not? How do you draw the line--and I'm being serious here, and I'd appreciate a serious answer: if the 9th Amendment doesn't protect those things, how does society determine which actions are protected and which aren't? How is the line drawn?

--- Reasonable men can enact reasonable regulations using due process as per our Constitution. For instance -- We have reasonable regs about nukes, and we have unreasonable, unconstitutional prohibitions about drugs, etc.
The 'line' is drawn at enacting prohibitions on items like drugs, tobacco, guns, porn, -- that have no actual intrinsic danger to people..

Until you can answer that question with a statement other than "the will of the people" (since that's what is at work here) then I don't think we can carry on any further. Any conversation on your part would be entirely irrational.

My statement on majority rule was irrational? -- Feel free to leave the discussion at any point when you feel that way, rather than trolling for effect.

[Publius Valerius]

By the way, I see you entirely ignored my examples:

Again, I'll repeat them, since you were unable to address them the first time: does the 9th Amendment protect gay marriage? Sodomy? consensual pedophilia? Necrophilia? Polygamy?

[Publius Valerius]

By the way, why would a gun owner EVER move to a state that doesn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution?

That was really dumb. You should have seen this one coming, dude.

[PatrickHenry]

"War on Sex Toys" Ping List Don't ask to be added to or dropped from this list. Just don't.

[RadioAstronomer]

Bunch of jackassed purtians who think they know what is right for everyone else.

[RadioAstronomer]

No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor, and its passage this year seems unlikely.

Hopefully never.

[tpaine]

You agree that I can't own an 'assault rifle' because I live in CA. Some conservative.

It really works out well--the People of the State of California want to ban guns, I want to own a gun, so I don't live there. What's the problem here? There's a real simple solution: you want to own an assault weapon? There are like 45 other states to live in.

I moved to CA close to 50 years ago, with a rifle that is now 'banned' because of how it looks. -- Bet me that the will of the majority now has the 'right' to ban me and my gun from the state.

You cannot see the problem in such laws? BS.

There is some other agenda in play here. Can you tell me what it is?

My agenda is Our Federalism. My agenda is a respect for Laboratories of Democracy.

Respect? -- Belied by your disrespect posted herein for our Constitutions 2nd Amendment.

As I've noted before, I think there should be no gun laws. [see bold, above & below]
Again, in all seriousness, I think a 14 year old girl, with a felony conviction, ought to be able to walk into Home Depot and buy a Browning Automatic Rifle with no taxes to pay, no identification to show, and no waiting period to pass. But, I respect that some people are different than me and that's fine--I choose not to live in those political communities, California included--shoot, I won't even VISIT California. If you moved to California 50 years ago, sorry about your luck, but if you want to own an assault weapon, it's time to move.
The state has a right to pass legislation--that's all there is to it. If you want to own an assault rifle--if it really bothers you that much--MOVE. Montana is pretty gun friendly, and you can probably sell your house in California and get something a lot nicer there--plus better scenery.

Sorry kid, but I'm a citizen of the USA that pledged over 50 years ago to protect & defend. I will not move.

You are the one that should move, considering your disrespect for the 2nd.

[tpaine]

Publius Valerius trolls:

By the way, I see you entirely ignored my examples

I didn't ignore them, I said that States can write reasonable regulations about such practices.

'By the way', I see you ignored most of my answers to your questions on that post. Cat got your tongue?

[PatrickHenry]

Bunch of jackassed purtians who think they know what is right for everyone else.

Would you support a compromise measure, like a law that required a safety lock on dildos?

[RadioAstronomer]

Would you support a compromise measure, like a law that required a safety lock on dildos?

And a 5 day waiting period in case of spontaneous impassioned buying. LMAO!

[Publius Valerius]

I have plenty of respect for the Second Amendment. I don't think the Federal Government can make any laws restricting the ownership of firearms. Last I checked, California wasn't the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, you're cut from the same cloth as a lot of the liberals today who are willing to distort the plain text of the constitution to suit your conveniences.

Let me give you a news flash: not everything is a constitutional right. The states have police powers, and the Bill of Rights didn't change that. Period.

You can piss and moan all you want, but California's law is on the books--it's been there since 1989--and it's not going anywhere. Why? Because states have police powers. If you don't like it, your answer is simple: move.

I would point out to you that Raoul Berger, a brilliant constitutional scholar, has discussed incorporation at length in his book, "Government by Judiciary," but I can see, by your former comments, that you are one of those people that think that the term "due process," despite a lengthy English common law and American history to the contrary, has some sort of substantive meaning and would not change these thoughts despite voluminous scholarship indicating otherwise.

I find that fascinating that when the Founders drafted the document, a term can mean one thing--but, apparently by magic--we can wake up one day 200 years later and the term has a different meaning. Remarkable!

[longshadow]

I'm waiting for someone to point out where in the constitution is says that I have a right to sneeze, to snap my fingers, to whistle while I work in basement, to put chapstick on my hot hogs, and eat flatulent foods while rubbing hot body lotion all over myself.

Doesn't America understand that the very fabric of society will be ripped asunder by battery-powered vibrating devices? If battery-powered vibrating devices are allowed today, what's next -- flouride in children's Ice Cream? Next thing you know, the very sanctity of our Precious Bodily Fluids will be in jeopardy! And then chaos will reign supreme, cats and dogs walking the streets paw in paw, the end of Civilization as we know it! It's just too terrible to contemplate.

< /Authoritarian Puritan Jackass Mode>

Mencken said it best: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

[Publius Valerius]

Why can a state write reasonable regulations about, say, gay marriage, and not the sale of dildos? What's the difference?

[PatrickHenry]

Wouldn't you agree that all dildos should be registered?

[tpaine]

Publius Valerius trolls again:

By the way, why would a gun owner EVER move to a state that doesn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution?
That was really dumb. You should have seen this one coming, dude.

Forgive me dude, as three years earlier I had sworn to protect & defend the US Constitution, and quite naturally I figured the 2nd would apply to my RKBA's. I even was dumb enough at that time to think the State of California would help me defend that right if the feds got out of line.

Silly me. -- I didn't take into account all the people like you, who give lip service to the RKBA's, but then turn around and applaud States that infringe upon it.