Skip to main content

Virginia to ban ... testicles?

Apparently, for $24.95 somewhere (and I really don't want to know where), you can purchase a set of large, anatomically correct testicles to hang on your trailer hitch.

If Virginia Delegate Lionel Spruill has his way, you'll have to put your balls back in your trunk.

Under his measure, displaying the ornamentation on a motor vehicle would be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $250.

He said the idea came from a constituent whose young daughter spotted an example of the trail hitch adornment and asked her father to explain it.

"'I didn't know what to tell her,"' Spruill said the constituent told him before Spruill vowed to stop such displays.

"I said, 'Sir, I'm going to be a laughingstock, but I'm going to do it,"' he said.


Last year (like Wilmington), Virginia contemplated a state law banning "droopy drawers."

OK--stipulating that dangling plastic replica human genitalia from your hitch is tacky--but fining people for being tacky is a potentially endless exercise, not to mention a serious government infringement on our rights.

Not to mention the fact that I'd much rather have the Virginia State Police out looking for drunk drivers and bank robbers.

Comments

For future reference, the best place to buy fake testicles for your family vehicle is a Bullhead City, AZ company called BullsBalls.com.

(http://www.bullsballs.com/)
Brian Shields said…
LMAO Shirley!

I asked my wife, because she despises those with a fury I have yet to face, and she said it may be because they are considered 'indecent.' Then she stated some 'what will we tell the children' argument.. and all that.

I countered with "why not make horses wear diapers then?" and she promptly told me that line of reasoning was ridiculous.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...