The AW is set to sunset. I believe the House would have to initiate an extension. Since the house is still in Republican hands, what if they conviently forgot to do it?

If they did, they would sure get my vote in 2002 and 2004.

Maybe the reps should call the re-instatement the "Child Violence Protection Act of 2004" and include a ban on abortion in it.  Nothing sends liberals into a froth like restrictions on abortion.  Of course you know abortion is constitutionally protected, but the right to keep and bear arms isn't.

Geo. Bush's position on AW ban is pretty clear if you read his platform. He'll just sign on to a roll-over on the AW ban without any discusion or even a press release.

I don't care for either god damned party. More and more I'm thinking Tim McVeigh had the right political position; he just worked in out in a distorted fashion.

An extension bill can originate in either house.  The bill might pass the Senate, but it will die in the house unless the third party people act like total morons and vote for guaranteed losers.  Vote Republican, or pro gun least in 2002 and there will be no bill.

Libertarians DO NOT advocate the constitution be followed. Instead, they urge a dramatic re-interpretation of the constitution to conform with their political views. Such re-interpretations differ greatly from the Constitution's original intent. For example, from the LP website:

"We oppose...laws concerning...[o]bscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression." There is no "liberty of expression" in the constitution. It's a liberal invention to give protection to porn etc which the founding fathers clearly did not intend the 1st amendment to protect.

"The individual's right to privacy...should not be infringed by the government." There is no right to privacy in the constitution, it is an invention of liberal courts designed to protect perverts and abortion.

"we advocate a strict separation of church and State." So called "strict separation of church and state" is a far more harsh standard than that set forth in the constitution, and disrupts the role in government which the founding fathers wanted religion to have.

Some of these may not exclusively refer to a position on the constitution, but clearly evidence the party's total disregard for its true meaning, and rebut the assertion they are "advocating that the Constitution be followed"

porn falls under the ifrst amendment

privacy: fourth amendment

"Speech" is protected by the 1st amendment, not porn. Are you saying that when Madison penned this amendment he thought to himself that it would protect pornography? Surely not. "Speech" referred to [i]political speech[/i]. The 1st amendment, however, has been perverted to protect porn by liberal courts, a clear deviation from its original intent. Furthermore the 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures, it is not a general prohibition on violating "privacy." The idea of "privacy" was an invention to to stop the regulation of contraceptives; later used as a basis to "create" another "right": abortion.

Any philosophy of constitutional interpretation that allows an unelected and unaccountable justice to willy-nilly change the constitution to suit the flavor of the day is dangerous: rights can be read out as quickly as they are read in. Liberals understand this; Libertarians, so wrapped up in their own rhetoric, do not. This philosophy exists only allows one to pervert the constitution to conform to one's own political views.

Given your logic then, the 2nd was only intended to protect black powder rifles, not AR15s, not AK's, and not machine guns.  And the first was only desgined to protect speech on the printing press, and not the Internet.

I think your reasoning that the consititution was only written to protect that the framers thought was all right and good, is exactly what they were trying to avoid.  I think they were trying to write it in such a way that it would be applicable to changes in the future, to protect future changes that they had not anticipated, not to restrict rights because some special group thinks porn is bad, or some other group thinks guns are bad.

Everyone has their own beliefs of what is right and wrong, and the consititution was written to protect the different beliefs of those groups, so one group can't infringe upon the rights of another.

Quite incorrect. The 1st amendment protects speech, regardless of medium. Speech is speech, reguardless if it is transmitted from a soapbox, printed material, television, or the internet. To take your logic backwards, you are saying the 1st amendment, in 1789, protected porn if it was printed on a printing press. It did not protect porn on a printing press then, and it doesn't protect it on the internet now. Porn freedom is simply not a right contemplated by "speech."

It's the same with arms. Arms are arms, whether new or old. The technology attached to various rights change, but the rights themselves do not. Thus there is in fact a great deal of flexibility. The point I am making is that this philosophy of constitutional interpretation changes the fundamental meaning of the right itself, and is not a mere change in recognition of the new modes and media necessarily attached to those rights.
To the extent you speak of guns you are correct, there is the 2nd amendment. To the extent you speak of porn, you are incorrect, there is no protection for porn in the constitution (because "speech" meant political speech). The constitution doesn't protect what you think or feel it should protect. But it does contain a way "to protect future changes that they had not anticipated": One can amend the constitution.
There is no general constitutional protection of "beliefs" (unless you are talking political beliefs).For example, you may "believe" animal abuse is ok, but you don't have a right to abuse animals (generally). The constitution clearly states what the government can do (in the case of the federal government) and what it cannot do (states and the feds). The limitations are very small. Certain rights (but not [b]every[/b] right imaginable) are generally protected by restrictions on regulation of those rights and the provisions guaranteeing democratic process. The constitution does not guarantee everyone is happy, or that the government be subject to every single restriction or right imagined by every single person (even if that one person thinks his rights are "infringed").

I will repeat myself so that you will remember to respond: "Any philosophy of constitutional interpretation that allows an unelected and unaccountable justice to willy-nilly change the constitution to suit the flavor of the day is dangerous: rights can be read out as quickly as they are read in."

NOTE: I'm not saying this is the BEST way for the constitution to read; it's simply the way things are. No matter how much I don't like the result, or feel it should be different, the constitution will not change to support that feeling or belief simply because I feel it or believe it.

Sir, I merely state what the constitution says. My views and opinions, as well as yours, people for gun control, or libertarians, are irrelevant to the constitution. The constitution is not concerned with whether the power it delineates can used to "force morality on others." You, as well as other libertarians, may have to recognize this, an abandon your stance that the constitution should be followed.
If that were so, then why did the Bill of Rights not apply to the states when they wrote it? Why did they never intend the B of R to apply to the states? The "concept" you assert is that of the Libertarian party, yes, but not necessarily that of the founders.
I don't need to, as that is wholly irrelevant as to the meaning or law behind the constitution. The constitution, as the founders wrote it, is unconcerned as to whether a state regulates pornography. The constitution furthermore does not require that all laws be only laws that regulate actions that affect other's rights.
That is not the subject at issue. The libertarians assert that there should be "a strict separation of church and State." My assertion is that this is not the standard set forth in the first amendment. To advocate such a standard deviates from the constitution, and thus cannot be said to be "advocating that the Constitution be followed." Whether or not it is a good idea, or whether or not it infringes another's "rights," is wholly irrelevant.
My statements in no way contradict this. My statements are on the constitution, and how libertarians do not "simply [advocate] that the Constitution be followed." Some policies of the libertarians in fact, as I have indicated, contradict with the constitution. It doesn't matter whether those contradictions are "good" to rebut your assertion that you "simply advocate that the Constitution be followed."

I will again have to repeat myself:
"NOTE: I'm not saying this is the BEST way for the constitution to read; it's simply the way things are. No matter how much I don't like the result, or feel it should be different, the constitution will not change to support that feeling or belief simply because I feel it or believe it."

Avtomat,

Amendment X (10).

[i][size=3]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.[/i][/size=3]

The Constitution protects porn wether or not you or I like it.  So long as people do not abridge mine or anyone else's rights, and their actions/choices are not clearly prohibited by the Constitution, then those actions/choices are clearly protected by the Constitution.

A "right," in terms of the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on the power of government. Notice the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't say "there is a right to freedom of speech," it says the federal government can't regulate speech. And by speech, the founding father's meant [i]political speech[/i]. THEY DID NOT MEAN PORN, and if you asked James Madison, he would have told you so.
The Constitution delegates authority to the FEDERAL government, not STATE government. States have regulatory power independent of the federal constitution. The constitution only LIMITS state power in [i]certain areas[/i]. If there is no specific power limitation on states provided for in constitution (ie what we call rights), the STATES have total power to regulate. By your own admission, STATES have the power to ban porn, because there is no express limitation of this power. Indeed, the 10th amendment specifically explains that STATES ([i]or[/i] the people) can regulate anything not prohibited to it by the constitution.
Sarcasism should be unnecessary to support your arguments.
Of course, there is a pretty good argument the federal government has no such power(unless such falls under interstate commerce etc). But then again, if you would read my posts, you will notice I speak in terms of state regulation. States do not get their power from the federal constitution. They can regulate anything not restricted in the constitution. There is no restricvtion on the regulation of porn by states in the constitution. In fact, a fair reading of the 10th amendment specifically gives states (or the people) the right to regulate such. So, to answer your question, states do not need an enumerated power in the constitution which gives them the power to regulate porn. That's not how the the constitution works. Notice, when the 10th amendment speaks of the federal government, it talks of enumerated powers, but when it speaks of states, it talks about [b]prohibitions[/b].

Incorrect. The constitution does not say "states cannot regulate something if it doesnt infringe the rights of other people." In fact, as you state, the 10th amendment specifically states that the constitution does not prevent state regulation of things not prohibited to it by the constitution. Again, this was redundant, as the B of R was never meant to apply to states.

This entire discussion digresses from my point: Libertarians advocate a philosophy of constitutional interpretation which would allow an unelected and unaccountable judge or justice to change the constitution to suit the "feelings" and desires of contempory public opinion. Such a philosophy is dangerous: it perverts the constitution from its original intent. If a judge can easily change the constitution to embrace nonexistant rights, he can just as easily take rights out.

I belive you are misinformed there my friend.  The B of R was intended expressly for the states (read: people/citizens).  The B of R guarantees that the federal government can not become too powerful (in theory if not practice). If it were not for the B of R the Constitution would never have been ratified.  The B of R guarantees people free choice in their lives.  Again, read the tenth.  If people of a state want to regulate a particular aspect of something they have the right to do so so long as the regulation does not conflict with the federal Constitutional rights of EVERY citizen.

Perhaps you just misunderstand me. The [i]restrictions[/i] in the B of R were not meant to apply to the states. For instance, the first five words of the 1st amendment. Yes, the 10th amendment does mention the states. But the constitution, in 1789, generally did not speak as to state powers.
If you mean the constitution would not have been ratified but for a promise to latter add a bill of rights, you may be correct, but the B of R was not added to the constitution until after the constitution came into being.
That is not what the 10th amendment says:
"The powers not...prohibited by the [constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It clearly states that whatever powers not banned from state use in the constitution are indeed powers the state has. In other words, the amendment is saying: "if the constitution does not say the state can't do it, then the state can do it." It does not state that the state can't do what the federal government can't do. The [i]RIGHTS[/i] mentioned are restrictions on federal power. This is what the term RIGHTS means. Today, we have a different understanding of the term "rights," but that definition is not that used by the B of R. How is it that the B of R contained this grandiose restriction on all state power, but it never has been mentioned, much less enforced? How is it that this was true considering the B of R was never meant to be applied to be applied to the states in the first place? At least you must conceed this in terms of the 1st amendment, which clearly states it is restricting the power of congress (not state legislatures).
So true. Even to the extent it protects states from federal judges who say states cant regulate porn.

Sir, if you cannot attack the contentions of my arguments, and thus must resort to veiled personal attacks, you needn't waste your time. Please however refer to your previous post, where you refer to porn, and the other posts by mtnpatriot, where he specifically refers to porn. It just happens to be the topic we have chosen. To imply I somehow have an "issue" with porn is quite childish, and does not support your arguments.
Is this what we are reduced to? I seriously doubt we can find any direct statement by Madison condoning or condemning pornography. The existence of either probably wouldn't prove anything. Must we even debate whether the FF wanted porn protected? Is that issue even in dispute? Is it relevant to the issue of the philosophy of constitutional interpretation which libertarians embrace? Do you even wish to discuss that philosophy?

ANYONE who honestly thinks porn is NOT protected, strongly appears to have a slanted/jaded opinion AND a PERSONAL agenda.

The true test, IMHO, of a patriotic American, is to support that which they abhor. I.E., a Black supporting the rights of the Klan OR a Jew supporting the rights of the Nazis. There is a distict diff between supporting the right, and supporting the act itself.

The very basis for America, is in itself, a self destructive, oxy moron. We allow the same socialists that wolud destroy the rights of the masses (read being anti-porn)

One possible remedy may be a honest, realistic OBJECTIVITY check to see the difference between an opinion and a factual situation (read 'if you asked Madison').

Avtomat,

I was rereading the thread and caught something you wrote:



On those sentences alone could be made an argument for the states to ban all firearms if the states wanted to.  Using your argument, if the states did ban all firearms, or all political speech for that matter, then those actions would be protected under the Constitution.  This is where I belive you are mistaken.  I understand what you are writing, but your argument, while good in presentation, would be the basis for elimination by the states of a citizen's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  

I do understand what you write in your arguments, but I find, from my interpretations of the Constitution and other writings from the FF, that your argument goes against what the FF fought and died for; personal freedom and liberty.

This might be an instance where we have to agree to disagree.  

mtnpatriot: I glad you caught that, but you needn't worry. I am not mistaken, you just don't know the whole story (and that is understandable, very few know of this historical tid-bit). The 14th amendment to the constitution "incorporates" most parts of the B of R to apply to the states (notice it says "no state shall"). Thus, the 1st amendment, and arguably the 2nd, do indeed restrict state power. But they were never meant to when the FF wrote them (the FF, in order to keep the primacy with in the states, did not think the federal constitution should stretch to the states). So, while states can't NOW trample the "rights" in the B of R, originally the B of R held no prohibitions over this exercise of state power.

But mtnpatriot, your arguments, as to personal freedom and liberty, need not hinge on the FF or B of R. I suspect that you could effectively argue them without such. So don't hang your hat on the B of R: you don't need to.

The law sunsets prior to the 2004 elections.

Whoever wins (especially in the House) in 2002 will determine whether or not the ban is extended or made permanent.  If you've got a strong pro-gun candidate in your district (Dem or Repub), get out and work for that person.

I don't see the extension of the ban as a done deal.  Al Gore ran on gun control and lost TN and WV, two states which went to Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  Bush's win was close enough that I think he knows that he can't afford to anger his core constituents.

My guess is the bill will be introduced, will pass the House and Senate in different forms, and will die in conference (just like the gun-control bill after Columbine).  That way both the Republicans and Democrats can use the issue to their perceived advantage.

I am not so sure.  I think Bush will be looking ahead to the 2004 elections. Bush's core constituents will probably vote Republican anyway, maybe a few Libertarian.  I think the Democrats will make a big deal about the extension and I'll wager you will find more anti-gun republicans then pro-gun democrats. This will tip Bush's decision.  We shall see.  I think he will sell us up the river.

10 to 1, says bush will support a ban that sets the age at 21. Look at his views. He isn't anti assault weapon. He openly says that 21 should be the legal age for anything. I will be 22 when it sunsets. Most importantly, wouldn't you rather be able to own an AR at 21 than almost nothing at anytime. 21 has wide support even among gun owners. Here is my take:

1) 21 Minimum Age for an Assault Wepaon or Handgun.

2) Complete Ban on Importing Foreign Magazines.

3) Extended Waiting Periods for Assault Rifles and possibly handguns

4) Mandatory Background Checks for Assault Rifles (even at Gun Shows.)

5) Complete Ban on Importing Foreign Parts. Possibly a new parts count for new Rifles.

6) Further requirements to purchase, such as mandatory firearms training or liscense.

You have to look at it realisticly the laws will only get tougher.