Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

You are not a conservative....just a religious thug on a "mission from God" - and no better than any Talibani - just with a different God.

KeepUSfree, that personal attack was absurd, and says much more about you then it does about Joe.

Is it your position that the State of California is permitted, with the approval of its legislature and governor, to prohibit the sale and ownership of firearms within its borders, and forcibly confiscate all weapons at its discretion?

My answer to that is yes. I don't like that idea, but it would be correct. The interesting corollary to that question, however, is that if you believe that the state of California does NOT have that right, and your belief is in line with the SCOTUS interpretation, then both you and the SCOTUS should immediately recognize that every law California has on the books restricting or banning ownership of arms is unconstitutional. This means that both you and SCOTUS should hold California in violation of the highest law of the land. When will the federal troops be coming in to rectify this great injustice?

(1)...The federal Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. I’ve been very clear on this point. Thus, your question would only apply to those 13 States whose Constitutions were enacted AFTER the ratification of the 14th amendment.

My point with the federal Constitution not being originally intended to apply to the states is that there is nothing in the 14th amendment which would seem to reverse this position. The SCOTUS has interpreted that amendment to be a reversal of this philosophy, but the language of the amendment does not indicate such a reversal other than by the most broad (read: twisted) interpretation. Although lawyers do like to use the most obfuscatory language possible, I would think that any amendment fully intended to reverse the entire founding philosophy of federalism would say so quite clearly, rather than being an interpretation that must be tortured out of a mere clause.

(2) State Constitutions Bill of Rights, even if redundant, have a couple of purposes beyond merely recognizing the rights ...States are simply not allowed to contract or contradict any federally recognized rights.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If you admit that, before the 14th amendment, the federal constitution was not meant to apply to the states, and state constitutions pre-date the 14th, then your above statement cannot be a true explanation for the purpose of state constitutions. The purpose of these constitutions pre-dates the 14th, so that purpose cannot incorporate the thinking that you claim is found in the 14th. There must be another reason that the state constitutions provided for exactly the same rights, in many cases, that the federal constitution protects.

It is my position that the purpose of the state constitutions was to protect the rights of state citizens because the federal constitution was not intended to apply to the states. Further, the 14th amendment offers no clear language that reverses this governmental philosophy and, quite frankly, does not appear to have even a vague reference to reversing this essential philosophy of federalism. The SCOTUS invented this interpretation of the 14th amendment in order to have power over state and local matters, a power they NEVER had before.

You can apologize for your heterosexuality if you want. Don't wonder why today's young men are so emasculated when they are continually forced to justify it to their government and (ironically) gay pedophile priests.

Porn does not make you heterosexual. It, like a drug, saps your moral boundaries and drags you into depravity, perversion, and addiction. Why do you think homosexuality is so popular now ? Pornography has compromised the old social inhibitions that knew it was abomination. Lesbianism is even popular amongst the porn addicts who post on FR. They joke about it.