[jmc813]

You're statement was ...

keep all our rights as proscribed by the Founders without the limitations of their 18th century physical world

I was simply pointing out that many liberals claim that the second amendment only covers muskets and arms that were available in those days, and they could not have imagined, let's say for instance, semi-auto pistols.

We seem to be drifting from the original article. We obviously disagree on the Patriot Act in general, but the article dealt with the sunset clause. With it intact, we can use the Patriot Act to fight terrorism today, and then if it is no longer necessary in the future, we can get rid of it. I don't see why you would oppose this set-up.

[Dane]

We seem to be drifting from the original article. We obviously disagree on the Patriot Act in general, but the article dealt with the sunset clause. With it intact, we can use the Patriot Act to fight terrorism today, and then if it is no longer necessary in the future, we can get rid of it. I don't see why you would oppose this set-up

Unfortunately with such 21st century realities, such as the easy availiabilty of such agents such as anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons that can be used by whackos, the 18th century world many Constituional purists long for will never be again.

But we can fight the whackos and keep the rights perscribed by the Founders, IMO, and that is what GW Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Ashcroft are trying to do and the squealing is coming from Bush opponents such as the New York Times, the ACLU, and people on FR who are more than willing to listen to their squealing(mostly Libertarians).

Like I have stated many times on this thread, I am going to trust the current administration and not the New York Times.