That's next.
"And we better not hear any buzzing under those things!"
Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Oh, nevermind.
But, the Bible says, "Thou shall make misdemeanants and felons of fellow citizens who might be having too much fun, thereby making you feel all smug and superior while you systematically ruin their lives." It's in there somewhere.
We should both have the freedom to chose where we want to live and what we chose to buy. But such logic is wasted on some.
I am sorry you have made the, no doubt accurate, self-assessment that you cannot handle living in a free society. I am worthy of freedom.
What a turn-off: even in the privacy of one’s own kitchen?
Why stop there? By your logic, why not ban redheads or left-handed people or Jews or Blacks? Certainly the majority should be able to make such choices, right?
Sorry to give you any more ideas.
That's next.
"And we better not hear any buzzing under those things!"
What a sinful waste of beer.
Plus, the yeast could cause an infection....
That's right--California has the right to do that--that's why I don't live there, or Chicago, or New York. I like guns, I own several.
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.
Where is it again that the right to sell dildos exists in the Constitution?
Paulsen trolls:
And that has what to do with this article? 92
Even assuming incorporation, there's a right to own a dildo in the constitution? 93 Val
You two are 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. -- Its unenumerated. -- Check out the 9th.
Come to think of it, hold the Tabasco.
Illegal aliens are turning some of South Carolina's nicest state parks into third-wrold hellholes, are putting undue pressure on the budget; and THIS clown is worried about some couple using sex toys in the privacy of their own bedroom? What a moron. Like someone stated earlier...WHERE is this forbidden in the Word of G-d? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, as I noted--it should more accurately be the right to SELL these toys.
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?
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?
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.
whoops! consensual, rather.
Driving sex toys into the back alley. Oh, wait . . . .
-- And abandon your efforts to subvert our Constitution with prohibitions on life, liberty or property.
How about a city? A state? Can't the citizens of a state decide how they want to live?
You bet they can bobbie, as long as they use constitutional due process in writing & enforcing laws.
Can't the citizens of a state ban sex toys?
Nope. - Prohibitions on toys, guns, drugs, etc, -- all violate due process.
The regulation diameter of "neck massagers" in South Carolina shall henceforth be three inches minimum.
No, it's not a different story. This is the idea of Federalism -- South Carolina isn't enslaving anyone and they haven't put up guards at the border to keep people from leaving.
So tell me again, how is their freedom affected?
You want to own or buy an 'assault weapon'?
Don't Drive to California -- they can legally prohibit them according to a lot of so-called 'conservative' FReepers.
Are you one Val?
That's right--California has the right to do that--that's why I don't live there, or Chicago, or New York. I like guns, I own several.
And yet 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?
The dreaded red "x." I figured those were illegal in every state. :-)
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.