Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Jason]

Reading project: 2nd amendment!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Here's a question. I've just read over the preamble and one thing sticks out. Why is there only one Federal Government?

Because it's a federation of states.

[Audley Strange]

So are those who are against Federal Government not then Traitors?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So are those who are against Federal Government not then Traitors?

Depends. The definition of traitor is "One who gives aid and/or comfort to an enemy." Civil protest doesn't qualify.

[Audley Strange]

Reading project: 2nd amendment!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does than not refer to State Government rather than Federal Government? The clue there seems to be State rather than Nation.

I'm starting with first principles here. That is, before I consider what should be restricted, what is so wonderful about the fucking thing...

[Rum]

Americans sometimes seem to treat the Constitution as a holy scriptue. It is due respect, yes. It is one of the wonders of the world in my opinion. But it is still only a document arrived at by a few enlightened and generally privileged men. Men of their time too of course, with no idea of what the future might hold.

If a country can't change and adapt and if necessary rethink some basic foundations perhaps it deserves to stagnate and decline.

[Audley Strange]

So are those who are against Federal Government not then Traitors?

Depends. The definition of traitor is "One who gives aid and/or comfort to an enemy." Civil protest doesn't qualify.

Those Texas secessionists and Montana Rapture ready militias are surely giving aid an comfort to the Marxist liberaljoo media Conspiracy and theocrats to break up your great nation.

Why are they not dead?

[Jason]

Perhaps it refers the 'state of the nation' - someone just capitalized on it. Either way, it indicates regulations on an instituted militia which is to be armed. 'The people' is an ambiguous term at best, but taken in conjunction with the aforementioned 'well regulated Militia' would indicate that armouries should be provided for 'the people' to arm themselves in times of need as dictated by the regulations of the Militia and does not indicate the right of individuals to arm themselves in preparation or expectation of need.

[Jason]

The 2nd amendment is a load of warblegarble. I can only conclude it was written by enlightened and inebriated men of privilege.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah it could be state of someone's hair too, but let's be realistic. It's capitalised.

Is "the People" ambiguous? Does it not refer specifically to the "We the people" as in the signatories in the Preamble? In other words is it not the responsibility of each state Governor/Senator or whomever is in charge of such things to make sure their states have well armed militias (and thus we must conclude a separate Government in waiting also.)

This is fun.

And yes they did like the weed.

[Jason]

"The people" is ambiguous because it can be, and is, interpreted as 'individual citizens of the State'. Your interpretation is also valid. What is the real intent? Waarblegarble.

[Tero]

It was a little country then. There was no Texas. Or Seth. A country by all accounts. Except he still needs a beer and an airline. Strict Zappa requirements.

[Seabass]

Americans sometimes seem to treat the Constitution as a holy scriptue. It is due respect, yes. It is one of the wonders of the world in my opinion. But it is still only a document arrived at by a few enlightened and generally privileged men. Men of their time too of course, with no idea of what the future might hold.

If a country can't change and adapt and if necessary rethink some basic foundations perhaps it deserves to stagnate and decline.

This is kind of a nonsensical post. Most of our laws aren't even in the constitution. Not to mention the fact that the constitution has been amended twenty seven times.

[Audley Strange]

Well what I see is a bunch of Landed with a new Home thinking "hey we can floss the peasants with this new bullshit rather than giving Mad George some cash." That's me being charitable.

Everyone says they were intellectual giants, with large anti-tyrannical penises of hope that shot freedom bullets into the hearts of a grateful world. So if they were so intelligent I doubt they were ambiguous. I'll go with what's actually said and how it pertains in context. I'm only at article one though so bear with me, I might change that opinion if it is clarified.

[mozg]

Pennsylvania's constitution begins with Article I Declaration of Rights.

Section 21 reads:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Do you find the term 'citizens' to be ambiguous?