The post by WAGCEVP reminded me of this piece I wrote back in August. I can't remember if I posted it here and I was too lazy to search the database. I spent a good amount of time writing it to be able to just replace certain key words. Opinions? Comments?
Here goes....
-----------------------------------------------------
Let's say the right to REPRODUCE is a natural right. Yes, REPRODUCTION is natural, it is something ingrained in all of us.
But, is it a natural right to have SEX? After all, people have SEX for more than just REPRODUCTION. In fact, SEX can be dangerous. A lot of SEX can lead to AIDS. How could we stop the spread of AIDS? We wouldn't want to infringe on personal freedoms too much, would we?
Maybe the secret to stopping AIDS would be to license SEX. After all, there's no right to SEX clearly and explicitly gauranteed anywhere in the constitution. We do agree that the right to REPRODUCE is a natural right, but SEX can be used for things other than REPRODUCTION. SO, if you're not MARRIED, you'd need to get an STD TEST before being granted a SEX permit. You'd have to list all your SEX PARTNERS on your permit. If you wanted more SEX PARTNERS or got rid of SEX PARTNERS, you'd have to add or remove them from your SEX permit. To have SEX without a license would be a felony. Of course you'd also have to pass a STD TEST to be MARRIED.
Why stop there though? Maybe we should pass federal CHASTITY BELT legislation. After all, there should be a lock on something so dangerous. It wouldn't hinder legitimate use of SEX ORGANS for recreation or REPRODUCTION too much, you'd just have to unlock them.
Of course, maybe we should just outlaw SEX altogether, because in this advanced and enlightened society we live in, we can rely on ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. Yes, each community can have a local ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION Department. The DOCTORS there would take care of you and there would be no need for anyone to have SEX ever again.
-----------------
Now, If the above argument sounds ridiculous to you, the following argument should sound JUST as ridiculous. Remember, the right to keep and bear arms IS in our constitution. (Although I left that sentence in, because most antis ignore that part of the Bill of Rights anyway)
-----------------
Let's say the right to SELF-DEFENSE is a natural right. Yes, SELF-DEFENSE is natural, it is something ingrained in all of us.
But, is it a natural right to have HANDGUNS? After all, people have HANDGUNS for more than just SELF-DEFENSE. In fact, HANDGUNS can be dangerous. A lot of HANDGUNS can lead to VIOLENCE. How could we stop the spread of VIOLENCE? We wouldn't want to infringe on personal freedoms too much, would we?
Maybe the secret to stopping VIOLENCE would be to license HANDGUNS. After all, there's no right to HANDGUNS clearly and explicitly gauranteed anywhere in the constitution. We do agree that the right to SELF-DEFENSE is a natural right, but HANDGUNS can be used for things other than SELF-DEFENSE. SO, if you're not LAW ENFORCEMENT, you'd need to get a BACKGROUND CHECK before being granted a HANDGUN permit. You'd have to list all your HANDGUNS on your permit. If you wanted more HANDGUNS or got rid of any HANDGUNS, you'd have to add or remove them from your HANDGUN permit. To have HANDGUNS without a license would be a felony. Of course you'd also have to pass a BACKGROUND CHECK to be LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Why stop there though? Maybe we should pass federal GUN LOCK legislation. After all, there should be a lock on something so dangerous. It wouldn't hinder legitimate use of HANDGUNS for recreation or SELF-DEFENSE too much, you'd just have to unlock them.
Of course, maybe we should just outlaw HANDGUNS altogether, because in this advanced and enlightened society we live in, we can rely on POLICE. Yes, each community can have a local POLICE Department. The OFFICERS there would take care of you and there would be no need for anyone to have HANDGUNS ever again.
This is the intellectual property of Demetrius Sarigiannis. This analogy may be freely distributed in its entirety.
Here goes....
-----------------------------------------------------
Let's say the right to REPRODUCE is a natural right. Yes, REPRODUCTION is natural, it is something ingrained in all of us.
But, is it a natural right to have SEX? After all, people have SEX for more than just REPRODUCTION. In fact, SEX can be dangerous. A lot of SEX can lead to AIDS. How could we stop the spread of AIDS? We wouldn't want to infringe on personal freedoms too much, would we?
Maybe the secret to stopping AIDS would be to license SEX. After all, there's no right to SEX clearly and explicitly gauranteed anywhere in the constitution. We do agree that the right to REPRODUCE is a natural right, but SEX can be used for things other than REPRODUCTION. SO, if you're not MARRIED, you'd need to get an STD TEST before being granted a SEX permit. You'd have to list all your SEX PARTNERS on your permit. If you wanted more SEX PARTNERS or got rid of SEX PARTNERS, you'd have to add or remove them from your SEX permit. To have SEX without a license would be a felony. Of course you'd also have to pass a STD TEST to be MARRIED.
Why stop there though? Maybe we should pass federal CHASTITY BELT legislation. After all, there should be a lock on something so dangerous. It wouldn't hinder legitimate use of SEX ORGANS for recreation or REPRODUCTION too much, you'd just have to unlock them.
Of course, maybe we should just outlaw SEX altogether, because in this advanced and enlightened society we live in, we can rely on ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. Yes, each community can have a local ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION Department. The DOCTORS there would take care of you and there would be no need for anyone to have SEX ever again.
-----------------
Now, If the above argument sounds ridiculous to you, the following argument should sound JUST as ridiculous. Remember, the right to keep and bear arms IS in our constitution. (Although I left that sentence in, because most antis ignore that part of the Bill of Rights anyway)
-----------------
Let's say the right to SELF-DEFENSE is a natural right. Yes, SELF-DEFENSE is natural, it is something ingrained in all of us.
But, is it a natural right to have HANDGUNS? After all, people have HANDGUNS for more than just SELF-DEFENSE. In fact, HANDGUNS can be dangerous. A lot of HANDGUNS can lead to VIOLENCE. How could we stop the spread of VIOLENCE? We wouldn't want to infringe on personal freedoms too much, would we?
Maybe the secret to stopping VIOLENCE would be to license HANDGUNS. After all, there's no right to HANDGUNS clearly and explicitly gauranteed anywhere in the constitution. We do agree that the right to SELF-DEFENSE is a natural right, but HANDGUNS can be used for things other than SELF-DEFENSE. SO, if you're not LAW ENFORCEMENT, you'd need to get a BACKGROUND CHECK before being granted a HANDGUN permit. You'd have to list all your HANDGUNS on your permit. If you wanted more HANDGUNS or got rid of any HANDGUNS, you'd have to add or remove them from your HANDGUN permit. To have HANDGUNS without a license would be a felony. Of course you'd also have to pass a BACKGROUND CHECK to be LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Why stop there though? Maybe we should pass federal GUN LOCK legislation. After all, there should be a lock on something so dangerous. It wouldn't hinder legitimate use of HANDGUNS for recreation or SELF-DEFENSE too much, you'd just have to unlock them.
Of course, maybe we should just outlaw HANDGUNS altogether, because in this advanced and enlightened society we live in, we can rely on POLICE. Yes, each community can have a local POLICE Department. The OFFICERS there would take care of you and there would be no need for anyone to have HANDGUNS ever again.
This is the intellectual property of Demetrius Sarigiannis. This analogy may be freely distributed in its entirety.