The tobacco lobby ain't gonna like this.
Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
I think they should certainly ban concealed dildos. And who would disagree that assault dildos serve no legitimate purpose.
Must be a lot of Muslims running things in SC--or maybe some other screwed up religion.
The tobacco lobby ain't gonna like this.
You obviously never got to know the Pleasureby twins on a long weekend in Rangoon, eh?
Lesbians, nuns, and old spinsters will protest this...
Salo, you probably figured this out already--but RP is one of the resident totalitarians.
Yuppers. Carry them in a "holster" right on the hip.
ROTFLMAO!
Larry Flynt chose Fort Lauderdale to open up his "Hustler Hollywood" store, smack dab in the middle of big-city traffic. Huge marquee signs advertising it, too. The windows are clear so you can see everything inside driving by. The city allowed it because at least 51% of the merchandise is not sex-related, therefore it wasn't considered a "sex shop."
Could not get em thru customs on the way home darn it! So the Vette is the best thing here. LOL!
Too easy.
Next thing you know, they'll be banning dildos with a battery capacity larger than 5 batteries.....
Gots to taker her to dinner first though. High octane premium only baby! LOL!
They should also crack down on driving under the influence of a dildo. How many crack-ups would that prevent?
And nothing with a pistol grip ...
well you just cracked me up! ROFL!
I am off for that drive though. The day is beautiful!
See you all tonight.
What I don't understand is how you can manage to hang onto the the steering wheel at 75 mph after duct taping anvils onto the wheel rims to unbalance them.....
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.
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.
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.
Last time I checked, all states are bound to support our Constitution; -- as per Article VI, and the 10th/14th Amendments.
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.
Unfortunately, you're cut from the same cloth as a lot of the communitarian's today who are willing to distort the plain text of the constitution to suit your 'majority rule' dreams.
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.
Your 'statist' slip is showing.
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.
Let me give you a news flash: -- misused 'police powers' are ignored by patriots, -- and there are millions of us in California.
If you don't like it, your answer is simple: move.
If you don't like our Constitution, your answer is simple: move. Prohibitionists are welcomed in most of the world.
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 rather like Barnetts 'Presumption of Liberty' facts about constitutional due process. See:
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
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!
Indeed, -- how you can 'term' the 2nds clear words as being infringe-able by State or local governments, -- is a truly remarkable feat of magic.
"Support the ban on driving under the influence of a dildo -- as we all know 'coming and going don't mix!' [This safety message brought to you by the South Carolina Highway Department]"
I guess the price of sex toys just went up. The government in its infinite wisdom just created a whole new class of criminals.
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.