Agreed, country borders are going to mean less and less each year that passes.  Fortunately the world will become so interdependent on each other economical that there probably will be a lot less wars that occur.

The U.S. needs to take more examples from the E.U. not necessarily in terms of economic policies (some of which they should adopt, IMO, like universal healthcare) but just chill the fuck out and quit being so hostile to foreign culture.

Its just like Colin Powell said, (loosely quoted), "What is wrong with being a Muslim in America?" When responding to how ridiculous McCain's campaign has been recently.  Our government may be pretty good at least at its core, but our culture really isn't that great except for our movies, literature and art.  Europe is a way more intellectually stimulating and culturally vibrant place.

Imminent domain sounds much more frightening than eminent domain.

Not everyone thinks it is scary.  Sometimes infrastructure and national security demand a forced sale.  Sucks, but there are some times where tough decisions to be made.

Using imminent domain to build a shopping mall is an abuse and is frightening

Not using imminent domain to build an important highway, communication line or military installation CAN be just as frightening.

No one should be so beholden to their political beliefs to allow no bending.  There are times when rights, laws, and the demands of government defined in the constitution or by the people can interfere with one another.

You do know that the correct phrase is eminent domain, correct? I was making a joke about how substituting the word imminent (hanging threateningly over one's head) for eminent makes the phrase sound foreboding.

In the original post, I had it as eminent... then I edited it to imminent... then I changed it back... then I changed it back again.

Thanks, I'll leave it wrong to show the world how stupid I am. I am posting at work, and my Google is broken.

 I would like to point this out.

YES!  Arms does = Missles, Nukes, SCUDs, viral weaponry and anything else.

NO!!! This does not mean that the constitution is out of date!

The forfathers had the wisdom to intentionally word it so that whatever was invented in the future would still apply.

You see the point of this is, if the government can have it, so can the people.  Or more apropriatly, the people should be the arm bearers and not the goverment.  A large part of Englands oppression over the Scottish and Irish had to do with weapon seizure.  If at any point the government disallows the people to have any form of weaponry that the government itself has than Oppression of the people is in the cards.  IN laymans terms.  IT is the government who IS NOT TO BE trusted with weapons.  The idea that the PEOPLE are the ones who should control the weapons is the ultimate point of this. 

Arms to the framers didn't include weapons of mass destruction. They do to us, and that just shows the shifting values and definitions.

To the framers arms were single-fire rifles and pistols.

If we go by the idea, like justice Thomas claims, that we should ONLY apply the constitution as it was originally intended then yes every free MAN could own a single-fire rifle or pistol, with women's sufferage we might be able to include women (but it would have to be worded a little differently).

But we don't look at the constitution that way. We have to apply it to modern times, which will not be 100% agreed upon.

If we are going to adapt it to modern fire arms, then we could adapt it to the modern conventions of what militias are. Both are taking it out of the context of the framers.

In 1789 everybody belonged to the militia, sure. But in 1790 as it shifted towards a regular army, that changed the definition of the word militia. What about the well regulated part? Should any one who wants to own a gun then be force to go through some training and indoctrinating? I don't know, I am just pointing out where interpretations pick and choose. Whether for or against the public right to own a gun, you are now changing the meaning.

As far as the idea that it was allowing the people to revolt, I have to disagree. The reason why the constitution was given so many ways to change and granted so many rights to the individual states (including the power to raise a militia, as implied by the norms of the time) was to make popular revolution unnecessary. It could be done on the state level, which was thought to better recognize the need of the people and be better organized to threaten the federal government; discouraging the abuse of it's power. This is very clear in the writing of the times from federalists (as to why it was included) and anti-Federalist (who called for protection of states rights).

The question isn't whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted, that would be impossible, it's to what degree and in which direction.

In the end we have to use reason and the general ideas about freedom and democracy which made up the spirit of the constitution to figure out how to live together.

Calling for one solid interpretation or another is irrelevant and unrealistic.

(Continuing the fight for Radical Moderatism.)

Isn't that illegal?  I thought it was illegal for doctors to refuse treatment.

it's funny how people look at the Constitution, and see different things.

When I see it telling the american people that you have the right to weapons for the purpose of uprising against an unjust government, I assume they meant to allow me the tools needed to get the job done.

I don't think they would want me to still have a musket. I think they would want me to have whatever is needed. I don't think nukes are needed, but missiles, tanks, automatic weapons... whatever we would need to replace the government.

The entire point was for government to realize that if they start removing out liberties, there were real consequences. I think it's obvious that today there aren't any.

 I think there are consequences though.  Every 2 years we the people have the ability to revolt non-violently.  If the majority does not agree with the policies or the direction of the government, then we get to clear house.  The real problem is the money involved in politics, not the ability to change our government on a regular basis.

I do agree however that we should have the right to bear arms that would be sufficient enough should the government say, suspend elections.  However, the Constitution does mention regulation, so give qualified people arms, but that doesn't mean anyone can have any weapon.  If you get training and licensed then you can get a wide array of weaponry as things stand.  I believe that most firearm related crime is carried out by those that have obtained their weapons illegally.  At one point I heard a stat in a documentary which I don't fully remember, but it was something like 3% of gun stores sell weapons illegally, accounting for over 70% of gun crime.  If I can find a link I'll post back.  But the point is the focus should be on illegal weapons first, then if there is still a major problem, look into tighter regulation, but focus on the main problem first.