User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 1:34:00 AM EDT
[#1]
I shudder to think what that would look like in South Florida, with all those old people  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:04:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Is that like saying "nobody needs a military assault rifle" ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:13:30 AM EDT
[#3]
Is this the Christian Temperance Union meeting?
I was out in the hall, wandering around when I heard a lot of self-righteous bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:13:58 AM EDT
[#4]
Nope. Not at all! Why would you even think of equating the Constitutionally secured RKBA with such filth? Such idiocy should be so obvious as to make your hands tremble as you typed that reply! It may very well be that you have the right to park your penis in any willing 'garage', but for Land's Sakes, don't try and relate it to the noble and righteous freedom that we have secured in the Second Amendment! Please! The Founding fathers were totally unconcerned about your or anyone else's prick. Understand? Eric The(Ruffled)Hun 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:18:08 AM EDT
[#5]
So you will stand up for the 2nd but not the 1st? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:24:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Post from bgcc11 -
I love the First Amendment almost as much as the Second, but let's be reasonable. Without the Second, the First, and the others, would always at the mercy of the overreaching Central Government. That said, please explain what part of the First Amendment was intended and designed by the Founding Fathers to protect where you wish to place your wiener! This should prove to be slightly amusing. (If it wasn't so sad, that anyone would place these two 'rights' on the same plane.) Let's hear your response! Please be prepared to defend your views. I have a reputation to uphold!  Eric The(SharpeningHisKnife)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:26:22 AM EDT
[#7]
What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate where people put their wieners? Kharn |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:28:46 AM EDT
[#8]
Post from Kharn -
Generally, none that I can think of, but that isn't the question, now, is it? We are talking of protected and secured rights, here. Not wishful thinking! Please discuss! ETA - Is there any basis for denying a person the right to park his penis in the garage of an 'underaged' owner? Then whatever the right may be cannot be absolute, can it? If there is a right to begin with! Eric The(Historical)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:29:52 AM EDT
[#9]
The question was not where one parks his dick. The question was, "How is it legal for a place like this to exist".
That's like someone saying " How is it legal for civilians to attend Blackwater" BTW The brain is the best weapon we have in our arsenal to protect our constitution. Dont ya thank? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:32:01 AM EDT
[#10]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:35:17 AM EDT
[#11]
How often did you visit Fire Island while you were there???
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:37:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Actions do not have to be protected rights to be outside the Constitutional realm of government oversight. And lets keep this to a discusison about the regulation of consenting adults, not involving kids. Kharn |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:43:16 AM EDT
[#13]
^ exactly ^
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:45:30 AM EDT
[#14]
Post from Kharn -
Absolutely! But don't prance about calling 'parking your penis' where you wish a 'constitutional' right, or one that is 'co-equal' with the Second Amendment, or anything else so profane and idiotic, as others have!
Why not? Oh, BTW, here's a little snippet from a legal website, let's see your take on it: "Early in the AIDS crisis, many gay-rights activists appealed to claimed rights associated with "sexual freedom" to resist the closing of the gay bathhouses in San Francisco, where unprotected sexual activity was rampant. Some entrepreneurs asserted rights associated with "free enterprise." But other citizens challenged these rights claims in the interest of public health. "Ultimately, the public health interest prevailed and the bathhouses were closed down. Throughout the controversy, however, the debate was structured by law and the language of law. Words such as "claims," "immunities," "powers," and "liberties" are part an parcel of the language of rights. These words are used to define societal relationships, but are different in kind from other words that also define societal relationships, such as love, friendship, respect, or envy. The language of rights is about enforceable entitlements. Rights are interests constituted by law and enforceable by governments. Love, friendship, etc. are not constituted by law; rather they emanate from the individual — "and we don’t look to governments to enforce them." Are you agreeable with the notion that the government can close down 'gay bath houses' in the name of public health? Are you comfortable with that idea? Does it offend your sense of what personal rights are, or are not, covered in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Please discuss. Eric The(Professorial)Hun
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:49:16 AM EDT
[#15]
ETH:
If its a public health issue, fine, close the places. But if they're going about it "safely" (ie big fricken bowls of condoms and dental dams all over the place) and it is not a public health risk, then where does the government have the power to regulate on the basis of moral/immoral activity? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:51:28 AM EDT
[#16]
You're still debating a point no one has made. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:53:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Back in college I would have slammed three shots of whisky, induced an impressive quantity of other random chemicals into my body, checked the deordorant, walked in, and shagged some serious pie until the place closed....
These days....nah. I go to be early cause I've got responsibilities n stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:54:53 AM EDT
[#18]
There's always retirement to look forward to 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:55:24 AM EDT
[#19]
Watch out! The very same public health factors that could compel a government shut of gay bath houses in San Francisco could very well shut down a 'sex club' in Florida, could it not? As a matter of fact, it's surprising that some gay activists haven't exploited the obvious double standard! What would your reaction be IF the State of Florida attempted to shut down this 'sex club' for the same reasons as the gay bath houses? I mean, after all, it's activities that are just as protected as the RKBA, is it not? Eric The(Facetious)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 3:58:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Post from bgcc11 -
Cat got your tongue, eh? That's what I thought. Do you think that the 'right' to park your penis someplace you wish is co-extensive with your RKBA? That's all that I wish to see answered. Or discussed. Eric The(Obstreperous)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:02:39 AM EDT
[#21]
EricTheHun:
Most likely, yes.
As long as the law passes Constitutional scrutiny, then its ok.
I never said that, there's a difference between protected by the Constitution and not among the regulatory powers granted to the govt by the same. Kharn |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:04:25 AM EDT
[#22]
My tongue being occupied by a pussy is not currently relevant. Neither is constitutional right of where to park my dick relevant to the the question being debated here. [ How is it legal for a place like this to exist?] ^ That's the question ^ |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:08:08 AM EDT
[#23]
Nice reply, Kharn!
I bristle at the notion that we've had more than 200 years of liberty, with millions of men fighting and dying to defend the right to park your wiener in someone else's garage. Period! These soldier/citizens fought for noble and lofty purposes, and not this bullshiite rampant sexual perversions! So, whatever you do, don't tell me that 'nude dancing' is a protected activity under the First Amendment to the same degree, extent, whatever, with the RKBA under the Second Amendment! That dog don't hunt around these parts! Eric The(Serious)Hun
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:12:36 AM EDT
[#24]
Post from bgcc11 -
Which you likened to: "Is that like saying 'nobody needs a military assault rifle'?" and "That's like someone saying 'How is it legal for civilians to attend Blackwater'?" See the link that you tried to establish between these two situations? That's what caused me to bristle! There is NO link! Eric The(Historical)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:13:52 AM EDT
[#25]
I thought we were talking about booty here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:16:02 AM EDT
[#26]
We are, my friend Hokie! I'm just busy saying that there is no Constitutionally secured right to slap and tickle booty!  Eric The(Snappy)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:16:27 AM EDT
[#27]
Again Where one parks his dick is not the question being debated here. But If you want to bring up soldiers; Betty Grable's ass was the absolute motivation to kill a fascist during WWII. The pursuit of Betty Grable's ass was the freedom our soldiers were defending. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:19:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Post from bgcc11 -
Still haven't gotten the point, eh? 'Absolute motivation'??? Betty Grable's ass? Are you watching the Playboy History Channel again, son? Eric The(Hysterical)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:22:11 AM EDT
[#29]
The point is "how can a place like that be legal?" That unamerican question is the question being debated here. Not the distraction you introduced ("where one parks his dick"). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:29:56 AM EDT
[#30]
Post from bgcc11 -
That was the question being debated until you linked that right with the RKBA, as I've pointed out above. With that linkage, I have asked you to defend your statements and you have failed to do so.
It was until you attempted to link it with the RKBA! 'Baby, things change.' ~ Dwight Yoakum.
The distraction was introduced by you, my friend, and I will not let it rest until you either acknowledge that the right to operate a sex club is NOWHERE protected in the US Constitution or by any other ennumerated, secured right in the Bill of Rights, unlike the RKBA, or defend your statements! That distraction is just the sort of wiggle room that the enemies of the RKBA seek to establish! BTW, what do you think of the City of San Francisco's decision to close down the 'sex clubs' in that city? I know that these 'sex clubs' were 'merely' gay bath houses, but the principle should be the same, right? Eric The(GettingImpatient)Hun
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:46:06 AM EDT
[#31]
how can this place be legal? easy it's a matter of freedom. gotta remember, you dont have a right to happiness, etc. Just because you don't approve of what others do means it has to be illegal. I think these sex clubs are perfectly legal under the guise of freedom. I mean I do find them to be somewhat morally reprehensible, but I'm not about to say close them down. I mean nobody is making me go to them, I don't care for them so I stay the hell out. period.
ETH: It is comparible to the 2nd in the fact that the same attitude is taken to these clubs as is taken with assault weapons and such. if you don't like it, then don't go to it. same with the guns, if you don't like em, don't buy em. PERIOD. They're private clubs and from what i've heard, they're well concealed. They're not SCREAMING out saying "hey lotsa sex here! come on in!!!!!" all over the front of the building. In fact it sounds like something that would take place in some upscale fancy home belonging to some aristocratic british family who enjoy exploring the more primal areas of human nature. Not my forte, but hey, to each his/her own. EDIT: and yes it does scream of disease factory, but again, no one's MAKING you go to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 4:48:15 AM EDT
[#32]
No, I have not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:02:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Gasp! And from a Texan, at that! OK, get ready to defend your position regarding this matter. We have already seen that 'private sexual conduct' can be regulated by local/state/federal governments in the name of 'public health concerns'! See the public 'gay bath houses' in San Francisco! Do you deny that this is the current state of the law? Yes or no? Now, as we have seen with the CDC in Atlanta, and among others in the 'health' industry - the presence of weapons in private homes may one day be held to constitute a 'public health concern', could it not? So, in the name of 'public health concerns' could the RKBA in private homes be regulated as a public health measure? IF the RKBA is on the same Constitutionally protected plane as 'private sexual conduct' then the answer is a slam dunk.....UNLESS you hold to the position that the RKBA is NOT on such a plane. Y'all are foolish beyond all human belief and understanding when you try and link these two supposed rights! You are setting up the Republic for a great fall when you fail to distinquish the sacred from the profane! Nude dancing, which has been found to be a protected activity under the First Amendment is NOT the same as publishing political tracts and public debate! Why? We know that from the 'original intent' of the Founding Fathers that the right of political expression is what was being sought to be protected - not the right to shake your tits at paying customers! I don't give a shiite WHAT the US Supreme Court may say, for that doesn't make it so, one way or the other. It merely makes it enforceable. If you don't see the difference, you are not alone! Neither does Sarah Brady, Michael Moore, the Leftist Press, and the liberal pukes who parade in federal robes! Fine company you have chosen for yourself, indeed! Eric The(VeryDisappointed)Hun
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:07:41 AM EDT
[#34]
Unfortunatly this is true. It used to be the case that darwinism was treated swiftly, also helping out population control and cleaning humanity of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:29:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Eric,
I don't want a sex club in my town. I went to one titty bar in my life, and I'll not go back. I felt the atmosphere there was bizzare--I genuinely felt sorry for everyone in that place. The BOR are there, there is no denying it, and it is the law. There is no provision guaranteeing a persons right to shake titties as a business. All that said--and I'm sorry this is going more off topic--the BOR should be interpreted simply as: "The Constitution defines and binds the power of the Federal government. If a power isn't defined in this document, it doesn't exist. Here are just ten 10 examples of powers this document does not allow...." I think the BOR was a mistake as it attempts to define what is not included in a document, which is ilogical, and leads people to think these are the only right we have. The BOR is/was an insult to the very notion of a limited government. I guess I'm just saying that sometimes the BOR cuts; sometimes it heals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:36:25 AM EDT
[#36]
I honeymooned at Hedo III.
We aren't swingers but it was a fun place to visit. Almost every person we met was extremely nice. Can't say that about most places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:37:31 AM EDT
[#37]
pics?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:40:31 AM EDT
[#38]
You are correct it is NOT a Consitutional Right. However I do think it is possibly a UNIVERSAL, GOD GIVEN right as mentioned in the DoI. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness... I think this might qualify as "pursuit of hapiness..." 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:42:25 AM EDT
[#39]
Posted them several years ago. None would survive the current CoC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:44:44 AM EDT
[#40]
damn....
My wife and I looked into that place for our honeymoon. Opted for St. Lucia instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:48:49 AM EDT
[#41]
They caused a proper stir back then too, if The Neutral Observer is not mistaken. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:49:44 AM EDT
[#42]
As one who has been an habitue of topless clubs at times since my recent divorce, I can well agree that there is a definite cloud of sadness, I suppose, that hangs thick in the air at such places. It must be the same with these 'sex clubs.' If your life was just peachy keen, why in the world would you visit such a place?
I know what you mean, BUT just think where our gun rights might be at present IF there was NO Second Amendment! I think that the mere presence and the as-yet-undefined-limit of those rights gives every politician pause when they are thinking about drafting the next gun-grabbing law! IF they go overboard, they may rightly fear that the US Supreme Court may overturn all gun control measures, whereas we fear just the opposite from the very same Court! I'm happy as Hades we have a Second Amendment, just for the possible mischief it prevents! It should be unnecessary....but it isn't! Eric The(Realistic)Hun
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:53:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Post from SteyrAUG -
Whew! Thanks for the support! I was beginning to wonder.....
It may well be! I have pursued moments of happiness at topless clubs, and I don't think that anyone has the right to tell me NO! But if the City of Dallas closed each and every one over 'health issues', it wouldn't make me 'take to the streets.' Now, if the City of Dallas tried to close gun shops under some health code rubric....I may be on the streets! Eric The(ThereIsADifference)Hun
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 5:57:55 AM EDT
[#44]
There are now sex and S&M clubs in some cities in India. GunLvr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:01:09 AM EDT
[#45]
full body condoms?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:02:27 AM EDT
[#46]
No way. We're WAY more kinky than those dweebs. Now where did I put that goat? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:02:32 AM EDT
[#47]
There is a constitutional right to this, its the 9th amendment. Not everything has to be enumerated, and I grow tired of you and your ilk's constant arguments in defense of controlling other people's lives because you disagree with them, spawned by your religious beliefs. If you don't like sex clubs, don't go to them. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be gay. If you don't like guns, don't own them. What a difficult concept. ..and you know what else? I don't care if the constitution enumerates it or not, freedom isn't granted by a document - I will not let mine be restricted by any person, regardlss if their 'power' comes from a political document or their religious tomes. Live free or die. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:06:05 AM EDT
[#48]
And I will give you that one as well. While I would object to uniform closures I have NO OBJECTIONS to health standards. Quite honestly there are LOTS of places I wouldn't want to have sex. A friend of mine nailed a bartender he worked with after hours and all I could think of was "Eeeeew you did it on the floormats behind the bar?!?" She was cute and all but I might have taken a pass. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:06:18 AM EDT
[#49]
who invited jimmy swaggart? or, is that 'oral' roberts i'm hearing in the pulpit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 6:15:09 AM EDT
[#50]
Wrong and wrong. Slick Willy. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
