Adult Stores, Threatened With Huge Fines, Vow to Remain Open

CNSNews.com ^ | November 19, 2001 | Rick Sarlat

[NittanyLion]

You still didn't really answer the question posed earlier:

Why do you propose using the power of government instead of citizen activism such as boycotts and picketing? Better yet, why not collect enough money to buy out the store owner and replace the porn shop with something more befitting your standards?

[joathome]

Because I believe communities have the legal right to set standards with LAW.

So.....according to you, I could open up a porn shop in my community, but as long as I made enough money.......perhaps from a few patrons in my town, and patrons from OTHER communities, he would have a right to stay in business. *****That's NO community standards at all, is it?***** Sorry, but the law is the side of community standards.

And, lest you forget, it is the "community" standards, as set by those in elected office or those appointed by elected officials.....not "my" standards.

[NittanyLion]

Oakland folks have morals of their own. Do you agree with their actions here? Do you agree that they have the right to these actions?

____________________________

Oakland's last retail gun store closes, owner blames anti-gun laws

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- The owner of the last retail gun store in Oakland reluctantly planned to close up shop Saturday, and she blamed this city's gun tax for forcing her early retirement. Mara Siegle said paying $24 for every $1,000 gross is making her close the business her family has run for 57 years.

The tax is one of a number of laws Oakland has passed in recent years to curb the availability of guns. The city was one of the first to ban "Saturday night specials," or junk guns, and to require locks be provided with each gun sold. It also has prohibited firearms dealers from operating near daycare centers, schools, churches or in residential areas, required dealers to carry a minimum of $1 million in liability insurance and to keep records of all ammunition sales, and prohibited minors and felons in gun stores. Proponents credit the tough laws with the decline in gun deaths in the city since 1995, when guns were used in 109 of Oakland's 153 murders. In 1999, 47 of 68 murders involved guns.

But Siegle, whose shop sold handguns, hunting rifles and ammunition, says the laws are forcing people out of business.

"All they're doing is making it harder for the honest, legal, law-abiding citizens to go through the legal process," she said.

Oakland's laws are stricter than state or federal restrictions, but vice mayor Henry Chang said their aim is not to close gun shops.

"There's too much gun violence in the flatlands, and we have to think of ways to cure this," he said. With Siegle's shop closing, the only stores with federal and local licenses to sell guns in Oakland are four pawn shops. Another store sells only to police. By comparison, San Francisco has one gun store and one auction house with federal licenses to sell guns. San Jose has 14 federally licensed gun stores.

[joathome]

Gun ownership is protected by the constitution, and, in my opinion, the sale of guns should not carry a tax burden any greater than any other goods.

But, since the liberals in this country believe the constitution is fluid rather than stactic, I'm sure we can expect much more of this type of thing. :(

[NittanyLion]

Gun ownership is protected by the constitution, and, in my opinion, the sale of guns should not carry a tax burden any greater than any other goods.

Do you see the parallel between what these folks have done and what you propose? Both of you think what you're doing is for a higher purpose (that's admirable), but in using government to achieve your ends you engage in a wrestling match to appropriate power for your agenda. If you can't decisively win that wrestling match, you will likely find yourself in an unenviable position.

[joathome]

Or perhaps I just happen to believe that our nation will cease to be great, when we are no longer a great people. sigh Community standards have always existed in this country. Although we had our flaws, our nation was great, in great part due to the fact that we demanded a certain moral code, and people lived up to it. We may not all have been religious, and we may not all have been moral, but most who weren't had the good sense not to flaunt it.

Now, we have no moral code. Do you really think the folks over at Berkeley (liberal, morally and politically), could have won WWII? haha Our society is breaking down because our moral fiber has broken down. Expect MORE stupid laws, not less.

[NittanyLion]

Or perhaps I just happen to believe that our nation will cease to be great, when we are no longer a great people. sigh Community standards have always existed in this country.

Surely you can see that not everyone's standards are in line with yours. In fact, some folks likely believe exactly the opposite of people like ourselves (I have never frequented the establishments in question here), and would fight to legislate their morality. I would sooner leave it to the free market, which I believe is far more reliable in effecting changes according to the true beliefs of the populace.

[joathome]

Well, people whose standards are exactly the opposite of mine have never built a great nation, and never will. Have a good day.

[NittanyLion]

Well, people whose standards are exactly the opposite of mine have never built a great nation, and never will. Have a good day.

You're right. So why would you give them the means by which to tear down all that you've built in short order? Because when those people manage to get elected to office, they will. And they'll use as a precedent actions such as the one you're proposing on this thread. If you believe in the essential goodness of the majority of Americans (and I do) why not let the free market dictate what happens? Feel free to influence it by boycotts, pickets, or buying the property and marketing something more wholesome.

[joathome]

What was that quote again.... something about when her people ceasing to be great, America will cease to be great?

I don't have to give them any ammunition. It's already there. The majority can now choose to vote themselves half of your paycheck because they have no greatness, no morality. Too many would just as easily sit on their rears, watch their porn, and take a check from Uncle Sam.

Duty, honor, courage, civic responsibility, personal responsibily, MORALITY........they all go hand in hand. Our nation, as the founding fathers envisioned it, is on it's last legs without a major change in the character of its people.

[Djarum]

Strip clubs and adult-themed stores are not found in Amish country. Why? there is no demand. The founding fathers counted on virtue--enforced by religion or established mores--to prevent children from shooting each other and porn shops from existing. Like the VPC and various gun control groups, censors will quote case law and insist laws that enforce these behaviors are constitutional. We must remedy the cultural maladies that led to misuse of rights, or the problems will reoccur despite any law.

[BlackbirdSST]

Just an observation. Would you want a porn shop in your neighborhood? Talk is cheap.

First, one would have to presume I don't have a porn shop in my neighborhood. That would be a false presumption. I can think of at least a dozen within 30 minutes or closer to my very own front door, and I live on a 900 foot ridge in West By God Virginia. Since this is all about you, and your feelings on the matter, no worries how your wants and needs take precedence over the wants and needs of others, (Porn or otherwise I'm sure)I'll second the motion on talk being cheap! Retort?
Blackbird.

[FreePaul]

morals, that made this nation the great nation that it is.

Morals in this country declined rapidly when the libertarians managed to stop the practice of drowning witches. I guess we'll have to start that again if we are going to restore morality to this country.

[joathome]

Oh,pleeeeeeeeeease. An isolated occurence. Not exactly what we could say about all the murdered babies, is it?

[culpeper]

So according to whatever it is you believe, one should not be a judge of morality ? or social standards? Or they have no value? Hey why not legalize prostitution and pot for that matter. These are "wants and needs" of others. One could say abortion is a "want and need" of others also. Why not just do away with all laws so that we don't infringe on anyone's "wants and needs" ? In cases where it benefits my children's upbringing you can bet your a$$ that I believe my "wants and needs" takes precedence over other's so called "wants and needs". You sound like one of these anything goes type of libertarian that believes that any type of infringing on a "want and need" is a violation of someone's constitutional rights regardless of what that "want and need" is. If you don't have a problem with pornography where do you draw the line on pornography? Or do you? Should members of NAMBLA be able to traffic in child pornography because that is their "want and need" ?

[slhill]

Joathome, i've not once even mentioned the word "moralist". I'm simply trying to understand the boundaries you are setting. I don't really see the distinction between the two examples you give. What you appear to be saying is that it's OK for two couples to play strip poker, so long as they don't do it repeatedly and don't live in town. Is that right? If not, what do you mean? Can three couples play? Four? Ten? Where is the dividing line? How does it work?

[BlackbirdSST]

Went from intelligent to nonsense! Of course there can be limits, but who are you to ban anything? Just because you don't like it, no way anyone else can enjoy life. Accusatory attacks against someone you don't know is a fine example to set for your children. Might as well let them in the porn shop, similar "morality". I'll be the judge of what I think is "moral", what I think is a moral approach to life for my children, without relying on your belief system. Try and push your morality on me, wheteher I believe the same or not, will get your teeth loosened at best. I'll not sit idly by and have you or your ilk "tell" me how I will live, what stores I'll patronize, what foods I'll eat, etc,etc,etc...You sound like the JBT you're proud to represent. Namecalling over?
Blackbird.

[Dataman]

My particular argument, if you must paraphrase, is "if you want to ban it, show the harm (and incidentally show that the harm is not outweighed by the harms inherent in bannig)".

What is bannig? FYI: The burden of proof is on the porn defenders.

Woman-beaters and child molesters may generally use porn, but they also generally eat, drink and go to the john. Equally,

Am I sparring with a child?

[slhill]

So no apology for gratuitous insults and slurs, then? What a surprise.

What is bannig? FYI: The burden of proof is on the porn defenders.

It's a typo, for which my apologies, particularly if it impaired your understanding of what I wrote. Did it? You say that the burden of proof is on the porn defenders. I say it's not and I say that my position makes more sense: it is reasonable that those seeking to put a legal restriction in place should be able to support their position with evidence.

Am I sparring with a child?

No. Am I sparring with a drooling imbecile who doesn't know the meaning of "reductio ad absurdum"?

[slhill]

BTW, by not posting a rebuttal that actually deals with the detail of my argument, point-by-point, and by resorting instead to ad hominem attacks, you demonstrate that you are unable to defend your position adequately. This forum is supposed to be about debate, not about publishing insinuations about other posters.