I mentioned already that time can mean two things, the measurement events between each other like a second means a certain number of events of a cesium atom happens, so by nature is relative. this is why special relativity was not that really important because the thought that time was separate from phenomenon was not true. Another meaning of time is the description of events and there occurrence to from one another. The present is what is now, like their is a green fire now and before it was red and after it, it is blue. you can not have an infinite number of events occur after the present for an addition synthesis starting from a point does not ever become infinity. Since all events before the current phenomenon had to be a current phenomenon before becoming one that was before one. since all events in the past are real, they may be represent from the present with the vent before now 1 and the one before that 2 .. . If it was infinite than a point that is equivalent to the amount of even or odd numbered events has to exist. It would be infinity for there are infinite numbers of even and odd numbers. With this there would be an event infinite numbers away from the present and means that an infinite numbers of events occurred to get to now. Which is impossible because an addition synthesis is impossible.

Not lead to infinity, miswrote at the last part part.

No I miswrote, I said interpreting the constitution through there intent is not valid because they had there own ideals but compromrolised on powers in the words and followed what they agreed and ratified.

Most descriptions are either based on a sequence of events or have similar concepts to one. Like falling is describing a sequence of an object going towards the earth or other such object. It's all comparison. The only ones that are non observation are like one or unlike which are not describing phenonomen as the others do. Also the film analogy I gave makes it so that you can not have an infinite number of events in between and in the past. Past meaning events that are before now. It is also a finite number of events since that which happens in sequence can can lead to infinity.

I would like to have the current amendments kept, I would like a intrastate commerce clause, which means control of commerce in the state. Though it may be denied if 3/4 of the state legislature denies it, just to keep our federal system in balance. Another is ban on all intoxicants and such halucigens. Lastly is a balance budget amendment where the feds can spend only what they have, except for natural disaster, wars, or insurrections among the people. Also get rid of Trumps tariff abilities. He should not have them under the current constitution based upon the fact only Congress can control commerce among foreign nations. Citizen United was interesting, the main argument was that corporations are groups of people essentially so they reasoned that if a person has the free speech than organizations should have the ability to use. Spending money can be speech since it speech means to Express a point or ideal. Though this tends lead to more corruption, so I would probably support an amendment against electioneering by corporation.

Watching a sunset means to observe a sun from one event being not below horizon to is one. Remember that is comparing and observation is a phenomenon therefore you are part of the event as well as thoughts that you think of. It's just comparing a prior to the now. Experiencing events occurring and thinking what replaced it, comparing by nature. Also when I mean points I meant if you were to describe a ball at the top of your house and than it was on your porch, it would be referring to the events that happened in between those two like being at certain relative distances at certain events. This also goes to my point of not infinite past for there can not be an infinite events inverween the ball at the top and to the prch for addition synthesis from a point never leads to infinity.

To Bitter Crank, what the constitution is a document ,which a body of men and groups debated and agreed upon, that decides the structures and powers of the government. I am not saying it should not change, but change with an amendment because the definition of an amendment is a change to address issues in function. True new problems occured but nothing that Congress with powers agreed in the constitution. The courts are only there to address people saying this breaks this law or the constitution. Judges are suppose to analyze if a problem exists like the one where New York gave exclusive rights to Hudson river steamboats over to New Jersey and so did New Jersey. What the court had to do was say was this commerce across state lines, not invent a new principle which they judge by. They are to judge against the constitution and valid laws and the only discretion is suppose to he deciding whether this is or is not subject said right or power. True phrases change but the moment you use it in speech or document of make final either official speeches or documents, then you have interpret it with the context as well as the standard at time and place of usage of word in a language. Like if I made a business and I set rules saying Communications with family or friends unrelated with your current work. Than you understand me in the language and context of 2018 at that area, not any time period. Lastly to you, I am a moderate in politics who supports regulations especially in environment because of climate change and the risk it poses to our resources and land. I advocate for states to have more power in regard to public safety and such with more emphasis in people being mandated to get mentally screened in order to see who may be physcotic and needs treatment and such. Though libertarians would want me gone if I ever said it to such a person. As such I want more government but do not claim this would be constitutional and advocate to make amendments as we are suppose to.

To Prothero, the intent of the forefathers is not the constitution is suppose to be interpreted. There were many compromises and ideals that each of them had but they agreed upon the document in its wording today so we are to interpret it in such. They disagreed over whether the bank was constitutional not what the constitution meant. Hamilton said that this was necessary and proper in order for America to deal with its debt and Jefferson said that this was just unfounded power and overreach if government. The constitution was not in discussion but whether the bank fit the pre existing powers. That matter is left to a superior judge to say which is based upon the agreed upon meaning of the powers of Congress. To better better understand let me give you a semi-analogy. You have 5 kilos as the based judgement and and another object which you are trying to figure out if it is more or less. If more than you buy the object, not you do not. The 5 kilo is bot in dispute, just the object and it's true weight. Only relevant historical documents like dictionaries, debate on the language if the law and context is the basis in getting a very set interpretation. Not preside because human language is not as precise as it goes and may have a few implication. But back to my earlier post saying non of the actual cases relating to the commerce clause is based on the words. They made it up with no basis in text with language and context. Also reinterpretation is not valid for as I said earlier that interpretation is the range of meaning a sentence may put. It has to exist by the allowance of such language at its use and context. Also the constitution serves as the basic structure of the government and rule of law which this is a republic and not democracy where people rule. The relationship between of Federal to state to common people is described and the best argument against it serves the people is an amendment could come and nullify any protections of the people and have a dictatorship. Possible is all the state legislature were unanimously working together and started a state convention make and ratify such an amendment by themselves. Lastly, is the constitution is not dead because it was never living . In reality if a majority of people stopped following it, it would not be able change anything or effect any one of us. AND THE CONSTITUTION has been changed 27 times already and can keep changing only under the rules itself sets.

It was Scalia trying to make sure gun regulations were kept and the the individual right but that approach would be dishonest since they are incompatible. What he could have done is say gun regulation of the sorts is unconstitutional and if you disagree than change the constitution with Article 5. Now I have make a point on how The Court has been making lies of the constitution out of need to keep social fabric or other reasons.

Metaphysician Undercover, that which you say passes means your comparing one event with another which is what a measurement is, to compare like with other like. One event is just a description of phenomenon at such point. If you have that which differs than that is in its own event. Time is not divisible for that means it made out of parts, but time is that which happens. This means that any change is just a happening that when observed appears to be from this than there are points in between. But that would mean another event, not one that is part of this.

Being kept from the from the president would not hinder your ability to keep and bear arms(could be artillery technically). But are you gonna argue my points or on the implications of my point? People because even one who is not a citizen as claimed by the second amendment. Citizens when it comes to states for the immunities and protection clause that made a majority of the bill of rights applicable to states. All citizens are applicable to the right.

Another matter is it should be argued by a person that the right is only for those in the militia is why not just had "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." A person would easily say that in order for a militia to work properly it need to have weapons that are competent for the situation, and members among the citizens and the federal government should not interfere with such.

So if the 2nd amendment was for a militia, there would be not right to keep and bear arms for the people

To the Metaphysician Undercover, Ot seems I will have to define tine more simple.

There can be two meanings of time, the measurement of events relative to others, and the description of each event in their order.

Measurement of time is simply saying that event x occurs after 3 events of y. An event is simply the description of phenonmen(that which is not and than is). These may not be divisible because by definition an event is or not and could only be measured with other events that would set on nature.

The other meaning of time is as I mentioned event A has a green fire than there us not, in such there are multiple phenomenon that have just happened but it being continuous is just based on humans perceived change in a certain order that makes it seem continuous. Like an old film that went really fast like 280 frames per second and could not tell it is set points of pictures in a certain order.

Divisiblity occurs because of the preconceived notion that space has points in between every line segment which does not work which change of a system.

Rather the theory would be that the people were ready to revolt should the goverment becomes tyrannical.

Bill of rights 1689, one example and state constitutions, as well as others.

Simple visual is A is the present and events after it are called A1, A2, A3 ... and so on. There can not be an infinite number of events after A because addition synthesis does not lead to infinity

Same would apply to the claim that an infinite past is possible forgets that the past is all events that were the instantaneous event that occured and was a that point what is like one moment you have A green fire and at that instant that was the present and than a blue came after it.

What is the present changes but the events in the last was the present and since the total amount of anything is even+odd than the amount of even numbered events before an instanceous present is infinity. Which means that an event infinite events from the present was the present but that means the present now came an infinite events which would be impossible for an addition synthesis is impossible.

Second amendment is civilians are free from the federal government infringing on them possessing and use of arms which are arms useful in fighting.

This changed with the 14th amendment so theoretically states are no longer legally able to regulate it.

That is another discussion, but the matter is they saw no need to have one and if they did the third amendment points to the relation with the people. The founders obviously knew that weaponry would advance for there existed sungle multibarrell guns, and the cannons which Jefferson said a private company could use to take ships. Weaponary has changed but that would only mean that the USA army is more powerful in nature relative to the citizens which Hamilton was saying such may not be as he says in the federalist papers.

"For the common defense brings two meanings of the whole. First of all, it means one may keep guns and have them on them for use for the community around you like invasion, insurrection itself, or such. If you look at the beginning of the Constitution it say the that we provide the common defense. This also states that the right to keep and bear arms does not require any condition to have arms or bear them because there is no condition for the final draft of the second amenment.

Time itself as a measurement is relative because measurement are by itself comparing another event. Like a second is "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium" atom. A phenomenon is either happened or would be happening. The present is the last phenomenon that just occurred and if we use time by just relative to what happened that the present is the instaneous point where A just occurred. This means my point of the past is the events that occur in succession before the point now. Now by definition is what is here at the moment and A just happened therefore my argument still is true for no infinite number of events can occur after after A, which from my previous post, I said that every past event must have been that instantaneous point of occurance that just happened. If there was an infinite past, than an event that is an infinite number of events from the present occured but that is impossible for an addition synthesis to infinity with a finite set like A1 A2 ... etc. Etc. .Your point seems to conflate that the present is occured and occurring which is not. What has just occured becomes different depending on the relative measurement from something new.

First we need to set up what infinite past means. It means there are an infinite number of events have occurred before the present. My first point is all events in that situation would have to be real. Second is if such was, than each event from the present can be represented by a number, for example event 1 would be the event that just occurred before present and event 2 would be the event that just occurred before event one and as such to infinity.

All events in that past must have been the present at one point. If we designate the present as a point, then all points after that would be a finite amount. Since all events are numbered from the present, let's say that we ask "how many events that are even numbered and we would say infinity. Since that represents real events than there must be an event in the past that is infinite events away for even+odd=total of any number event. This is not possible for such an event would have been the present and as such can not be for that means the current present happened if an infinite number of events occurred and an addition synthesis to infinity from finite set is impossible.

The second amendment is not difficult. Just say what is there instead of preconconvied notions. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time, as they would say to clocks that kept precise and true time that they were well regulated. Militia than actually meant adult white men that would be able to call to service in an event of an invasion or rebellion. The being necessary part was detailing the first part as to what is. The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms. An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states. The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".

The people who use guns to kill innocents were responsible for their actions and the best way to handle gun violence is education and medical help for drug abuse and higher punishments for sellers of drugs. Background checks would also be the best and that's all that is really needed.