[Desertdog]

The following quotation was taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13111-2003Apr22.html
In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum, R-Pa., said in the interview, published Monday.

If the gays have the rights of privacy to do whatever they want to at home and women have the right to privacy to kill their unborn children, then why can't we have the right of privacy to have whatever firearm we want in our home without having to get state or federal approval (sounds like the 2nd Amendment to me).
After all, the above mentioned classes of people don't need approval from the authorities for their activities, why should we?

Remember the saying, "Equal treatment under the law".:rolleyes:

[dev_null]

Conversely, what happens if it's heterosexual sex? Should the courts decide what kind of sex you and your spouse can have? What positions? How often? Which days of the week?

-0-

[Greg L]

Should the courts decide what kind of sex you and your spouse can have? What positions? How often? Which days of the week?

I guess it would depend on if they were determining the maximum number of times or the minimum. :D

Greg

[BogBabe]

In Roe, the SCOTUS went through contortions to find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. They found it in "penumbral emanations" or something of that nature.

Given that we have a penumbrally emanated Constitutional right to privacy, it seems to me that this right should logically be able to serve as a foundation for doing away with all firearm registration, background checks and permit laws.

Just imagine what rhetorical hyperbole would be thrown around if women wanting an abortion had to register with the state, undergo a background check, or get fingerprinted and apply for a "may issue" permit before being permitted to exercise the penumbral right to an abortion. (I'm not attempting to make this an abortion debate, just referring to the penumbral rights established in Roe.)

The same reasoning should be applied to the privacy rights of gun owners.

Never happen, of course.

[David Scott]

Amendment X

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.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in the Constitution can be construed, IMHO, as granting the government the right to regulate consensual relationships between legally competent adults. Amendments IX and X are clearly intended to prevent the government from assuming powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Legal precedent has established that rights may only be restricted in cases of overriding public interest, as, for example, the right to free speech may be restricted to punish slander or shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. However, the government has never demonstrated such overriding public interest in the matter of consenual sexual relationships.

I conclude that all laws regulating or prohibiting any form of sexual conduct between consenting, legally competent adults are unconstitutional.

[Desertdog]

for understanding my point. The point had nothing to do with sex.
It is about the government butting out of our lives and letting us do what the Constitution allows.
If the "right to privacy" exist for one group, then it should exist for all groups, including gun owners. Not to mention the fact we also have the 2nd Amendment on our side.