Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[Jason]

No, it's one of several valid interpretations of 'the people'. I do find "shall not be questioned" absurd, however.

[Audley Strange]

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?

No. Do you Think Pennsylvania's constitution is the constitution of the United States? Also, you don't seem to be arguing against my point that it is in fact the State, not the Federal Government who should be creating such militias. If Pennsylvania want to allow everyone to arm themselves then that should be the responsibility of the state. However if the majority of the state disagree then it seems reasonable people should be allowed to form a militia to take up arms and kill those tyrants in Government who wont give up their arms no?

[Audley Strange]

Okay there we go... Part one Section two...

the People referring to the citizenry.

Yes. Glorious document so far.

[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.

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.

These threads are getting people forgetting their manners.

So kindly fuck off.You know exactly what I am talking about.

[Audley Strange]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Seems pretty clear to me. It's not a constitutional right of the United States, that a citizen can bear arms, instead rather it is the duty of each state in the union, to provide it's own militia as part of the Union and it is up to them how they go about it with their constitution. If they wish a militia of random citizenry that's up to that state. Kinda feudal, but not unreasonable.

[Jason]

We expect your full report by noon tomorrow.

[Audley Strange]

Hehehehe. That's it.

I've finished with the Bill of rights too. Despite my earlier mockery, its not actually that bad. I don't find it nearly as nebulous as others have, but then I'm not wrangling it to suit an end.

It's a quite reasonable short and legible document (I liked chuses as an archaic spelling) but I don't see anything controversial with either my conclusion or why that cannot be taken into consideration.

[Jason]

Your conclusion is the same as mine, so I'm hardly likely to differ.

[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.

These threads are getting people forgetting their manners.

So kindly fuck off.You know exactly what I am talking about.

[Jason]

From the other thread:

The Supreme Court, in Heller, ruled that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right not predicated on membership in the militia and that self defense is one of the prime purposes of preserving the RKBA. The efficacy of the militia and its preparation for being called to duty by Congress is one of the OTHER intents of the 2nd Amendment, but not the only one.

[Audley Strange]

In correct context...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

I'm reading it now. Cheers Pord

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Second Amendment is a artifact of British colonial rule.

[Jason]

I like Judge Henderson, she seems to understand what the 2nd amendment is about.

To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.

Emphasis mine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Strict interpretation vs Loose interpretation. Lawyers love that shit.

[Jason]

First impression: It was a bootstrapped decision influenced by the gun lobby and anachronisms with very little attention paid to the amendment itself.