Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
--- the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
"--- A "well-regulated" militia is not a prohibited militia but one that is well drilled. Even those who read the Second Amendment as a "collective" rather than an individual right on the basis of this preface concede--indeed their theory requires them to insist--that the power to regulate the militia that the Constitution elsewhere confers upon Congress does not include the power to forbid or prohibit the militia. By their interpretation, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of the state militias. ---"
Prof. R. Barnett
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
Thus we see, -- even among the Sarah Brady set, -- logic would lead a ~reasonable~ person to agree that a State does not have a delegated power to prohibit weapons, as this would infringe on the peoples right to bear arms [in a militia, if need be].
Can you admit you are being ~unreasonable~ on this issue, paulsen?
"They should be free, like the air we breathe," said a spokesman for the former president.
It was the original intent of the Founders to have the Bill of Rights restrain solely the newly formed federal government.
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Case in point. In the deliberations of the constitution, Madison proposed: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.
It was rejected. The Founders had already written/ratified Article VI Sec 2. There was no need for further specificity.
Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!
The 14th was necessary to clarify the issue. Southern States were violating 2nd Amendment rights using the erroneous 'Barron' decision.
For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.
Paulsen, your's is the absurd argument, based solely on a redundant Madison proposal. Give it a rest. The Constitution is quite clear in defending individual rights.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on fed/state/local governments. Clearly, this "right of the people" -- "shall not be infringed".
Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.
Simply not true. Nunn_v_Georgia proves otherwise:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.
Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.
Sure it is. I said your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. If there is nothing in your state constitution about arms, then your RKBA is neither defined nor protected.
There you go again bobbie, making a circular 'denial' type argument, -- ignoring the rest of the Constitution, and the rest of the comments above.
Have you no shame? -- Time after time, when people here present you with well reasoned arguments, you pick one detail to 'deny/answer', ignoring all else.. -- Pitiful display.
I mean, why ban the sales, if you're not going to go all the way with it? What's the logic behind that?
Another point on your multitudinous posts on this subject - anyone besides the repressed Davenport sponsoring this bill? And since it's a long way from passage, how can you maintain it's the will of the people of South Carolina?
Just because one guy wants to make a name for himself and do his best rendition of Carrie Nation doesn't mean there's any consensus out there. Wouldn't it be more prudent to say a legislator wants to ban the sale of these toys, rather than say "the people of South Carolina"?
Your post simply makes no sense. Contrary to what you say, no, they are not analogous. As usual, you've missed the point. Just because you would like them to be analogous doesn't make it so.
So to reiterate, what's the purpose of banning the sale of these items, and stopping there?
You know, I've always been more than a little wary of people who, not content to live their own lives, seemingly want to live everyone else's for them. This guy's attempt at this type of legislation definitely falls under this category.
His time would be much better spent focusing on the real problems of the state that he was elected to represent. If this is their biggest problem, South Carolina, alone among all political entities in the universe, has reached Nirvana.
Somehow, I don't really think that's the case.
CA....
My understanding is that they don't like the storefronts, the window displays, the advertising signage, etc. They consider the display, the marketing, and the sales of these products to be obscene and want them off the shelves.
"Wouldn't it be more prudent to say a legislator wants to ban the sale of these toys, rather than say "the people of South Carolina"?"
I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?
This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?
"This guy's attempt at this type of legislation definitely falls under this category."
It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.
Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?
That is classic "community standards" criteria. I wasn't aware it was a state legislature issue. Of course, I suppose some people who have bigger dreams than being a legislator from the town of Backwater may try and fit this into a state-type issue. Who knows what thought processes are at work down there?
I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who's been invoking the "people of South Carolina".
This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?
Nitpicking? Isn't that rich! I've been following your posts, and this isn't the charge for you to level. On the other hand, given the paucity of your "arguments", maybe it is....
It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.
Uhhh, that's been one of my points. Nothing's law yet, nothing's even been debated in that legislature. We have, according to the story provided, no evidence of anything other than single sponsorship of this absurdity. And yet, all this time, you've been invoking "the people". You apparently can't see the irony in your post.
Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?
Given what's transpired on this thread, that's a line that doesn't even merit consideration, let alone a response.
CA....
Humor me. What's your point?
So selling them is forcing perversions on people now? So that would mean that selling guns is forcing death on people (if you are anti-gun person) or selling tobacco is forcing people to smoke or selling burgers and junk food is forcing people to become fat? Get a grip.
State of Confusion?
Bet she has, that is why he is banning them. Bet she needs the toys to show him her Ohh face......Oh, oh,..you know what I am talking about, oh, oh.
I wonder if people will have to register their sex toys?
Perhaps it won't, but the fact is that the idiot wasted time to even come up with the bill and to present it. That was time and money that could have been better spent and it would have been one less bill for them to deal with.
How about using some common sense for comming up with bills, if it had been used he would never have offered this stupid bill.
You mean that people should be forced to live by your religious beliefs (let me guess, Baptist right?) even if the people don't belong to the same religion as you (thus not having the same beliefs). No drinking, no skirts above the ankles, no makeup, no women wearing pants, no holding hands, etc.
Face it you are as much as a religious radical as those wacky taliban. How dare people have the big O and how dare they do it using toys to do it.
Why not put it on the ballot and find out? Just because something put into a bill does not necessarily mean that it has the support of the people. It may have support of some people, just like ultra-radical evironmental wacko bills have support of the ultra-radical evironmental wackos, the handle that they are, but not the support of the people as a majority.
Because they have legislators to do that for them. That's their job. That's our form of government, not a pure democracy.
No, telling the citizens of South Carolina that, in the name of freedom, they have no right to prohibit the sale of sex toys. That's forcing a perversion on the people.
Do you believe the citizens of South Carolina have no right to prohibit the sale of sex toys?
Where do MY religious beliefs enter into this? I didn't see my name in the article, did you?
The citizens of South Carolina decide. Not me. Not you. That's my point.
I wonder if a battery operated banana would be legal????
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.