Should Porn be Banned

[ori]

.

Darn it peeps, either flat out delete the post or leave it be. Don't blank it.

I’d delete if i could.

[Doxxen]

"Ok so I’m “shallow” because I have standards? standards that match the prophet’s teachings. I’d say one SHOULD be picky when choosing a marriage companion."

So she doesn't have standards. Who's standards trump. Whenever you say standards you are saying that you are better than her, that's the problem is you think your standards are better. I mean she's not a meth dealing, murderer, sex trafficker, she wears short shirts, oh my goodness. The shallowness comes from thinking your better than someone else, or else you would be telling her that her short shirts are acceptable. Those aren't standards, those are religious indoctrinated values. I mean do Mormon's and other religious people really think you are better for not having short shirts because your prophet said so? The prophet saying these things is the very debate, just because it comes from a prophet doesn't make it any much better, its still a cultural custom. I guess people who wear short shirts are lesser human beings. Your standards are way too high.

[David13]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Brother Kearney

Unfortunately, you have not been paying attention, or you have your head buried in the sand.

That is exactly where we are and have been for many a moon now.

I'm tempted to say I really don't know where you been, but I guess it wasn't Utah, it was ... Penn Sil Vain Yah.

Have you ever heard of Chicago? Washington DC? California?
dc

[gkearney]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Brother Kearney

Unfortunately, you have not been paying attention, or you have your head buried in the sand.

That is exactly where we are and have been for many a moon now.

I'm tempted to say I really don't know where you been, but I guess it wasn't Utah, it was ... Penn Sil Vain Yah.

Have you ever heard of Chicago? Washington DC? California?
dc

Your post rather makes my point. You don't like the gun regulations put in place by the governments of Chicago, Washington DC, or California do you? You find them to be a violation of the Second Amendment. However under the argument that the bill of rights applies only to laws made by the Congress you have no grounds to stand on to object to local gun laws. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. Under this legal theory state and local governments have every right to confiscate all guns if they were to chose to do so. (On a side note I lived for a time in the bay area of California and I never had to register any of my guns.)

Beyond guns let's look at what other rights might fall to the vagaries of state and local laws shall we?

1. Freedom of speech and or the press. You can forget about posting your opinions on LDSFF is some locations. The states and local governments will be free to institute any kind of internet filtering they want, welcome to China everyone. How about practicing your religion? Better not try that if it is an unpopular one like Islam, Unification or, dare I say it, Mormonism. Or perhaps you don't mind having your local taxes going to support the Catholic Church in Maryland, the Lutherans in Minnesota or the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan? Don't care fro that? You can always move.

2. Right of the people to keep and bear arms, kiss that one goodby as the local authorities confiscate your guns and ammo if they so choose.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, So much for your private property rights.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, I'm sure you will welcome the local authorities rifling through your home looking for your guns, herbal remedies, and who knows what else, right?

5. Due process of law, your fine with no grand juries then, with letting the local prosecutor try you over and over again until he gets that conviction he's after, perhaps by getting you to testify against yourself as well.

6. Speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. We'll just leave you locked up until such time as we can arrange for a secret trial without a jury in some far off location. I mean this is the states and local governments here no need to burden them with bothersome business of a public trial. Beside there will be no one to report on it anyway. (see item 1)

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, oh yes people can sue you for millions and you don't get a jury trial.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. We'll financially ruin you even if you don't go to jail and if you do go to jail we can torture you as well, after all we're the states and cities not the federal government.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except of course "the people" who happen to live in one of the states and so are not protected by this clause. The states are free to do as it pleases them and don't come running to the federal government expecting any help.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Nice idea except that the states get all the power, they have the police, and the people get zip.

Now I don't know about the rest of you fine people here but I am unwilling to surrender these rights just to put a stop to the distribution of some smutty pictures and movies. That is not a price I am willing to pay.

[ori]

"Ok so I’m “shallow” because I have standards? standards that match the prophet’s teachings. I’d say one SHOULD be picky when choosing a marriage companion."

So she doesn't have standards. Who's standards trump. Whenever you say standards you are saying that you are better than her, that's the problem is you think your standards are better. I mean she's not a meth dealing, murderer, sex trafficker, she wears short shirts, oh my goodness. The shallowness comes from thinking your better than someone else, or else you would be telling her that her short shirts are acceptable. Those aren't standards, those are religious indoctrinated values. I mean do Mormon's and other religious people really think you are better for not having short shirts because your prophet said so? The prophet saying these things is the very debate, just because it comes from a prophet doesn't make it any much better, its still a cultural custom. I guess people who wear short shirts are lesser human beings. Your standards are way too high.

lol. I didn't say she didn't have standards. But clearly, her standards, and mine, did not match up. I never said I was better. I admitted she was better off without me.

So trying to live by revealed truth makes me "better" than another? No. I also have lived by a sexual purity code. No sex before marriage being a part of it. I'm sure many in the world would say that by living that way, and wanting a mate that lives that way, .. they would say that I think I'm "better" than other people. So living a standard that you disagree with, means I think I'm "better" than another? So you're saying it's impossible for me to live a standard, and hold a potential mate to a standard, and not be "better" than another? So in order to prove that I'm not "better" than other people, I have to not have standards for a mate?

Where your logic leads doesn't make any sense.

[Allison]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Brother Kearney

Unfortunately, you have not been paying attention, or you have your head buried in the sand.

That is exactly where we are and have been for many a moon now.

I'm tempted to say I really don't know where you been, but I guess it wasn't Utah, it was ... Penn Sil Vain Yah.

Have you ever heard of Chicago? Washington DC? California?
dc

Your post rather makes my point. You don't like the gun regulations put in place by the governments of Chicago, Washington DC, or California do you? You find them to be a violation of the Second Amendment. However under the argument that the bill of rights applies only to laws made by the Congress you have no grounds to stand on to object to local gun laws. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. Under this legal theory state and local governments have every right to confiscate all guns if they were to chose to do so. (On a side note I lived for a time in the bay area of California and I never had to register any of my guns.)

Beyond guns let's look at what other rights might fall to the vagaries of state and local laws shall we?

1. Freedom of speech and or the press. You can forget about posting your opinions on LDSFF is some locations. The states and local governments will be free to institute any kind of internet filtering they want, welcome to China everyone. How about practicing your religion? Better not try that if it is an unpopular one like Islam, Unification or, dare I say it, Mormonism. Or perhaps you don't mind having your local taxes going to support the Catholic Church in Maryland, the Lutherans in Minnesota or the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan? Don't care fro that? You can always move.

2. Right of the people to keep and bear arms, kiss that one goodby as the local authorities confiscate your guns and ammo if they so choose.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, So much for your private property rights.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, I'm sure you will welcome the local authorities rifling through your home looking for your guns, herbal remedies, and who knows what else, right?

5. Due process of law, your fine with no grand juries then, with letting the local prosecutor try you over and over again until he gets that conviction he's after, perhaps by getting you to testify against yourself as well.

6. Speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. We'll just leave you locked up until such time as we can arrange for a secret trial without a jury in some far off location. I mean this is the states and local governments here no need to burden them with bothersome business of a public trial. Beside there will be no one to report on it anyway. (see item 1)

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, oh yes people can sue you for millions and you don't get a jury trial.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. We'll financially ruin you even if you don't go to jail and if you do go to jail we can torture you as well, after all we're the states and cities not the federal government.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except of course "the people" who happen to live in one of the states and so are not protected by this clause. The states are free to do as it pleases them and don't come running to the federal government expecting any help.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Nice idea except that the states get all the power, they have the police, and the people get zip.

Now I don't know about the rest of you fine people here but I am unwilling to surrender these rights just to put a stop to the distribution of some smutty pictures and movies. That is not a price I am willing to pay.

What state constitution offers no protection for anything in the Bill of Rights?

The fact that the Bill of Rights does not directly govern every state and community is not controlled by anything a state or community does with regard to porn. This fact existed long before our conversation started.

I can see how it would be bad news, at least until you looked into your own state charter. If yours is too sloppy, why not move to a state that is more explicit?

Even for me, it was a little unsettling to learn that. However, God given rights are not enumerated by any government.

Would you really prefer that we are all bound hand and foot by the opinions of the US Supreme Court? Would it not be better to allow states to end abortion where that is the sentiment of the people? Banning abortion would never fly in Massachusetts, so if you really like abortion, you could go there. And if I felt safer in an area that did not kill babies, I could move to Georgia. (My husband and I actually talked about that—perhaps a place that might escape the coming wrath of God!)

Even if your own state documents are not restrictive enough for your liking, you have a much better chance of bringing about change locally as an activist than going up against the Federal monolith.

[Allison]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Brother Kearney

Unfortunately, you have not been paying attention, or you have your head buried in the sand.

That is exactly where we are and have been for many a moon now.

I'm tempted to say I really don't know where you been, but I guess it wasn't Utah, it was ... Penn Sil Vain Yah.

Have you ever heard of Chicago? Washington DC? California?
dc

Your post rather makes my point. You don't like the gun regulations put in place by the governments of Chicago, Washington DC, or California do you? You find them to be a violation of the Second Amendment. However under the argument that the bill of rights applies only to laws made by the Congress you have no grounds to stand on to object to local gun laws. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. Under this legal theory state and local governments have every right to confiscate all guns if they were to chose to do so. (On a side note I lived for a time in the bay area of California and I never had to register any of my guns.)

Beyond guns let's look at what other rights might fall to the vagaries of state and local laws shall we?

1. Freedom of speech and or the press. You can forget about posting your opinions on LDSFF is some locations. The states and local governments will be free to institute any kind of internet filtering they want, welcome to China everyone. How about practicing your religion? Better not try that if it is an unpopular one like Islam, Unification or, dare I say it, Mormonism. Or perhaps you don't mind having your local taxes going to support the Catholic Church in Maryland, the Lutherans in Minnesota or the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan? Don't care fro that? You can always move.

2. Right of the people to keep and bear arms, kiss that one goodby as the local authorities confiscate your guns and ammo if they so choose.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, So much for your private property rights.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, I'm sure you will welcome the local authorities rifling through your home looking for your guns, herbal remedies, and who knows what else, right?

5. Due process of law, your fine with no grand juries then, with letting the local prosecutor try you over and over again until he gets that conviction he's after, perhaps by getting you to testify against yourself as well.

6. Speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. We'll just leave you locked up until such time as we can arrange for a secret trial without a jury in some far off location. I mean this is the states and local governments here no need to burden them with bothersome business of a public trial. Beside there will be no one to report on it anyway. (see item 1)

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, oh yes people can sue you for millions and you don't get a jury trial.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. We'll financially ruin you even if you don't go to jail and if you do go to jail we can torture you as well, after all we're the states and cities not the federal government.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except of course "the people" who happen to live in one of the states and so are not protected by this clause. The states are free to do as it pleases them and don't come running to the federal government expecting any help.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Nice idea except that the states get all the power, they have the police, and the people get zip.

Now I don't know about the rest of you fine people here but I am unwilling to surrender these rights just to put a stop to the distribution of some smutty pictures and movies. That is not a price I am willing to pay.

Also, this issue is about more than just the participants in this forum. Access to pornography is one of the 7 (or 8–I forget) steps that child traffickers use to snare children.

Libertarians can virtue signal all they want about Satan’s plan, free speech, etc., but if something is putting children at risk, and porn does on many levels, we should not wave it off.

Would you or would you not regulate/restrict/ban child porn? Is that not also a slippery slope?

[captainfearnot]

Libertarians can virtue signal all they want about Satan’s plan, free speech, etc., but if something is putting children at risk, and porn does on many levels, we should not wave it off.

It's like you're begging people to make 2nd Amendment comparisons.

[Allison]

Libertarians can virtue signal all they want about Satan’s plan, free speech, etc., but if something is putting children at risk, and porn does on many levels, we should not wave it off.

It's like you're begging people to make 2nd Amendment comparisons.

Virtue signaler. Libertarians are the most incorrigible, excepting the Swedes.

[ajax]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Brother Kearney

Unfortunately, you have not been paying attention, or you have your head buried in the sand.

That is exactly where we are and have been for many a moon now.

I'm tempted to say I really don't know where you been, but I guess it wasn't Utah, it was ... Penn Sil Vain Yah.

Have you ever heard of Chicago? Washington DC? California?
dc

Your post rather makes my point. You don't like the gun regulations put in place by the governments of Chicago, Washington DC, or California do you? You find them to be a violation of the Second Amendment. However under the argument that the bill of rights applies only to laws made by the Congress you have no grounds to stand on to object to local gun laws. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. Under this legal theory state and local governments have every right to confiscate all guns if they were to chose to do so. (On a side note I lived for a time in the bay area of California and I never had to register any of my guns.)

Beyond guns let's look at what other rights might fall to the vagaries of state and local laws shall we?

1. Freedom of speech and or the press. You can forget about posting your opinions on LDSFF is some locations. The states and local governments will be free to institute any kind of internet filtering they want, welcome to China everyone. How about practicing your religion? Better not try that if it is an unpopular one like Islam, Unification or, dare I say it, Mormonism. Or perhaps you don't mind having your local taxes going to support the Catholic Church in Maryland, the Lutherans in Minnesota or the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan? Don't care fro that? You can always move.

2. Right of the people to keep and bear arms, kiss that one goodby as the local authorities confiscate your guns and ammo if they so choose.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, So much for your private property rights.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, I'm sure you will welcome the local authorities rifling through your home looking for your guns, herbal remedies, and who knows what else, right?

5. Due process of law, your fine with no grand juries then, with letting the local prosecutor try you over and over again until he gets that conviction he's after, perhaps by getting you to testify against yourself as well.

6. Speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. We'll just leave you locked up until such time as we can arrange for a secret trial without a jury in some far off location. I mean this is the states and local governments here no need to burden them with bothersome business of a public trial. Beside there will be no one to report on it anyway. (see item 1)

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, oh yes people can sue you for millions and you don't get a jury trial.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. We'll financially ruin you even if you don't go to jail and if you do go to jail we can torture you as well, after all we're the states and cities not the federal government.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except of course "the people" who happen to live in one of the states and so are not protected by this clause. The states are free to do as it pleases them and don't come running to the federal government expecting any help.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Nice idea except that the states get all the power, they have the police, and the people get zip.

Now I don't know about the rest of you fine people here but I am unwilling to surrender these rights just to put a stop to the distribution of some smutty pictures and movies. That is not a price I am willing to pay.

What state constitution offers no protection for anything in the Bill of Rights?

The fact that the Bill of Rights does not directly govern every state and community is not controlled by anything a state or community does with regard to porn. This fact existed long before our conversation started.

I can see how it would be bad news, at least until you looked into your own state charter. If yours is too sloppy, why not move to a state that is more explicit?

Even for me, it was a little unsettling to learn that. However, God given rights are not enumerated by any government.

Would you really prefer that we are all bound hand and foot by the opinions of the US Supreme Court? Would it not be better to allow states to end abortion where that is the sentiment of the people? Banning abortion would never fly in Massachusetts, so if you really like abortion, you could go there. And if I felt safer in an area that did not kill babies, I could move to Georgia. (My husband and I actually talked about that—perhaps a place that might escape the coming wrath of God!)

Even if your own state documents are not restrictive enough for your liking, you have a much better chance of bringing about change locally as an activist than going up against the Federal monolith.

Well said here Allison. gkearney fails to acknowledge that this was THE interpretation for the first 150 yrs of the republic. Why was this the interpretation? Why did the founding generation reject any notion of incorporating the bill of rights to the states? Is there wisdom in this?

They rejected it because they viewed the union as a federal republic, where the states still retained sovereignty to govern themselves, and were not be be reduced to mere administrative units of the central government. Incorporating the bill of rights now means the federal government can now look over the shoulders of all the states and slap their hands if they deem something to be naughty. Can a Christian nativity scene be displayed on public ground? Well, the federal courts must decide. School prayer? Well, the federal courts must decide. Abortion? Federal courts, and on and on. This is why there is such a clamor to control the center on both sides.

As you stated, state constitutions preceded the federal constitution, and were already in the business of protecting rights, though not perfect, but ever evolving to be better. It was the states that were gradually abolishing slavery one by one. The US Constitution Bill of Rights was to circumscribe the central government so as not to dip into the realm which belonged to the states.

[David13]

Brother Kearney misses it again.

And thinks I "proved his point".

Ah, me.
dc

[David13]

I guess the simplest explanation of where he goes wrong is:

He is trying to sell us federal protection for our federally given gun rights.

But that is not where gun rights come from. They come from almighty God, or if you are atheist, from nature, in existence before any government at all on the north American continent.

My Utah territory Deseret, or the State of Utah had gun rights before the federal government was ever formed.

But GK likes federalism and globalism, etc., I guess, and so tries to sell it.

So, do we need 'federal protection'? No. We just need less government.
dc

[gkearney]

Brother Kearney misses it again.

And thinks I "proved his point".

Ah, me.
dc

OK, go ahead and sell your birthright of liberty for a mess or porridge. But remember It is just as easy to remove liberties for state constitutions as it is to add them. When the authorities come knocking at your door demanding your guns it will likely be the state and local authorities that do soI. But no worries you will at least be free of porn, that's a good trade off, right?

[captainfearnot]

Incorporating the bill of rights now means the federal government can now look over the shoulders of all the states and slap their hands if they deem something to be naughty. Can a Christian nativity scene be displayed on public ground? Well, the federal courts must decide. School prayer? Well, the federal courts must decide. Abortion? Federal courts, and on and on. This is why there is such a clamor to control the center on both sides.

It doesn't help matters that states have become so dependent on federal funding, either.

[gkearney]

My Utah territory Deseret, or the State of Utah had gun rights before the federal government was ever formed.

Oh really now, the territory of Deseret existed as a entity before the independence of the United States and had gun rights? What history books are you reading?

The Constitution of the State of Deseret, later the Utah Territory was adopted on July 2, 1849. The constitution of the United States was ratified on June 21, 1788. Last time I checked mathematics (1849 subtract 1788) tells me the adoption of the U.S. constitution proceeded the Deseret/Utah constitution my 61 years.

[David13]

Brother Kearney misses it again.

And thinks I "proved his point".

Ah, me.
dc

OK, go ahead and sell your birthright of liberty for a mess or porridge. But remember It is just as easy to remove liberties for state constitutions as it is to add them. When the authorities come knocking at your door demanding your guns it will likely be the state and local authorities that do soI. But no worries you will at least be free of porn, that's a good trade off, right?

Complete misunderstanding of what I posted and what I believe and advocate.

I have said nothing about ... "porn", other than to ask people to read the cases which they refused to do, and I said I have not read them, and won't, and asked for a definition of it.

They, none of them have a definition of it. DO YOU?

If you do, give it to them, I call for no ban on anything. Just ... LESS GOVERNMENT.
dc

PS I'm not 'shouting' here, just trying to emphasize what you missed.

[ajax]

gk, the states have always had the right over domestic policy. They never gave up their sovereignty to govern themselves. Well, they have now, and so everyone now seeks one-size fits all policy making from DC. To deny this is to deny historical fact. It was originally a union of free and independent states, created by them, ratified by them, retaining all power not delegated. It was not one government where the central power dipped in the the policy making of the states.

So to get back to topic, if a state wants to ban porn, it can. It may be bad policy to do it. It may be unenforceable. It may lead to unintended worse consequences. But the state certainly has the right to do it.

[ajax]

Incorporating the bill of rights now means the federal government can now look over the shoulders of all the states and slap their hands if they deem something to be naughty. Can a Christian nativity scene be displayed on public ground? Well, the federal courts must decide. School prayer? Well, the federal courts must decide. Abortion? Federal courts, and on and on. This is why there is such a clamor to control the center on both sides.

It doesn't help matters that states have become so dependent on federal funding, either.

Indeed.

[gkearney]

Brother Kearney misses it again.

And thinks I "proved his point".

Ah, me.
dc

OK, go ahead and sell your birthright of liberty for a mess or porridge. But remember It is just as easy to remove liberties for state constitutions as it is to add them. When the authorities come knocking at your door demanding your guns it will likely be the state and local authorities that do soI. But no worries you will at least be free of porn, that's a good trade off, right?

Complete misunderstanding of what I posted and what I believe and advocate.

I have said nothing about ... "porn", other than to ask people to read the cases which they refused to do, and I said I have not read them, and won't, and asked for a definition of it.

They, none of them have a definition of it. DO YOU?

If you do, give it to them, I call for no ban on anything. Just ... LESS GOVERNMENT.
dc

PS I'm not 'shouting' here, just trying to emphasize what you missed.

This whole thread is titled "Should Porn the Banned" what have you been reading here?

[David13]

Brother Kearney misses it again.

And thinks I "proved his point".

Ah, me.
dc

OK, go ahead and sell your birthright of liberty for a mess or porridge. But remember It is just as easy to remove liberties for state constitutions as it is to add them. When the authorities come knocking at your door demanding your guns it will likely be the state and local authorities that do soI. But no worries you will at least be free of porn, that's a good trade off, right?

Complete misunderstanding of what I posted and what I believe and advocate.

I have said nothing about ... "porn", other than to ask people to read the cases which they refused to do, and I said I have not read them, and won't, and asked for a definition of it.

They, none of them have a definition of it. DO YOU?

If you do, give it to them, I call for no ban on anything. Just ... LESS GOVERNMENT.
dc

PS I'm not 'shouting' here, just trying to emphasize what you missed.

This whole thread is titled "Should Porn the Banned" what have you been reading here?

Read my posts and see. Don't seem too difficult to me.
dc

[gkearney]

gk, the states have always had the right over domestic policy. They never gave up their sovereignty to govern themselves. Well, they have now, and so everyone now seeks one-size fits all policy making from DC. To deny this is to deny historical fact. It was originally a union of free and independent states, created by them, ratified by them, retaining all power not delegated. It was not one government where the central power dipped in the the policy making of the states.

So to get back to topic, if a state wants to ban porn, it can. It may be bad policy to do it. It may be unenforceable. It may lead to unintended worse consequences. But the state certainly has the right to do it.

And by extension the states also have the right to come and take your guns, force you to pay taxes to a state church, and abridge any other right they feel so inclined to? Do I have that right? We only possess the liberties that our individual states feel so disposed to let us enjoy and meet out to us, their subjects, as suits them? Gosh the Magna Carta granted more liberties than that.

[EmmaLee]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

[gkearney]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That fine in the philosophical sense but not every effective when the SWAT team breaks down your door and demands you hand over your guns.

[EmmaLee]

Rights come from God, not the state/government - therefore, the state/government cannot take rights away. They sure do try though.

That fine in the philosophical sense but not every effective when the SWAT team breaks down your door and demands you hand over your guns.

Yes, I am aware. Sadly, it's only gotten to this point (the scenario you propose) because of the vast ignorance and apathy of the American people, Mormons included. If most Americans understood rights, where they come from, how to retain them, etc. we would have a very different government today than we do - one where your proposed scenario would/could never come to pass. But alas...

[ajax]

gk, the states have always had the right over domestic policy. They never gave up their sovereignty to govern themselves. Well, they have now, and so everyone now seeks one-size fits all policy making from DC. To deny this is to deny historical fact. It was originally a union of free and independent states, created by them, ratified by them, retaining all power not delegated. It was not one government where the central power dipped in the the policy making of the states.

So to get back to topic, if a state wants to ban porn, it can. It may be bad policy to do it. It may be unenforceable. It may lead to unintended worse consequences. But the state certainly has the right to do it.

And by extension the states also have the right to come and take your guns, force you to pay taxes to a state church, and abridge any other right they feel so inclined to? Do I have that right? We only possess the liberties that our individual states feel so disposed to let us enjoy and meet out to us, their subjects, as suits them? Gosh the Magna Carta granted more liberties than that.

Theoretically yes. And this is why we ought to be diligent in our localities to protect individual rights. All the states had constitutions prior to the US Constitution most of which had declarations of rights. Several states still had state religions at the time of ratification. All of them were protecting gun rights already. They did not create the US government as a daddy government to keep in line all of the children. The states were already pre-existing political communities that were in the business of self governance and rights protections, though not perfectly, coming together only in the spirit of mutual protection and commerce.

As long as freedom to leave exists, states won't get completely out of line, well besides California...

It allows some parts to do stupid things without affecting the whole, whereas if we rely on the center, one decision affects all parts. The states then could nullify and secede, but we know how that can work with power mad politicians.