I know that even mentioning this on/. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...
I happen to agree with this perspective, but do notice a huge difference in training Police get today compared to when I was growing up long long ago. Police today are trained to believe that everyone out there is criminal. Not all officers buy into this, but it is being taught and drilled into them. Police are also taught that they are supposed to stick together no matter what. In the 60s and 70s this happened to some degree but it was not discussed as training material and only used when questionable methods were used to catch real criminals. Unlike today where cops are filmed beating a mentally unstable homeless person to death, or shooting a def person for not obeying voice commands, and fellow officers don't speak out.
I'm not biased, and will tell you openly that the majority of people claiming police abuse on youtube are deserving of brash treatment and crossed the line. I also believe that most people joining the force have good intentions.
I think the cameras will help, but as you mention only when they can not be tampered with. I think the training officers receive should revert back to decades ago where they are grilled that their job is to defend and respect is earned even with a uniform. I believe cops that turn whistle blower should be given medals and receive praise to boot.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
No offense, but I think you are missing the significance of Epoch time in thinking this. Even if you stated something like "math is related to computing" the number systems are different. Base 10 vs. Base 2 and all that.
The US has never been a Democracy, it's been a Democratic Republic. A Republic closely matching the definition in the book by the same name authored by Plato in ancient Greece over 2,500 years ago. If you wish to appear pedantic at least do so correctly. Study the book, it's pretty amazing how close we got until the government was successfully undermined. Socrates describes human nature in that book too. Reading that book is discouraged and the knowledge it contains is not well known. Most people don't read the book, and most people that claim to have read it have only browsed a couple chapters.
Don't mistake what I said, I never claimed US Government was perfect. I said it was as close to a perfect government as we have seen. Humans have been trying to undermine it constantly because it would distribute power if it actually worked as Socrates defined.
Finding two witnesses is a simple task. Start with the whistle blowers and work your way out. Of course they will need to declassify data in order for us to have "proof" of their wrong doing, but that's a court issue not a Constitutional issue.
As to the NSA declaring war on America lets run down a list. If they have been planting malware on computers in the US they have waged war against their own country and destroyed property of US citizens. If they have spied on Americans against the 4th amendment they have declared war on America. If they have handed data on US citizens to foreign agencies (which they have done), and compromised the integrity and credibility of the government they have further declared war on the Republic. If they have caused undue harm to US citizens by violating their basic human rights they have declared war on America.
Their declaration of war is exactly what people claim "terrorists" have done to declare war on the US. The difference is really one of scale where the NSA is far worse. And before you make a silly statement, "terrorists" are not a country so it is not an official declaration of war being referred to in the "War on Terror" either.
I do know what the word means, do you know what both the NSA and FISA courts have been doing which compromises the integrity of our Democratic Republic form of Government? You do not see how smear campaigns based on illegally obtained information breaks the Democracy?
Yes they are treasonous, do some homework.
People are not mad about the NSA investigating Iran's centrifuges they are mad at how the NSA is abusing powers to spy on everyone in the world, and sell data which reduces liberty and democracy world wide. They are mad about FISA courts becoming a rubber stamp organization for this agency to abuse it's powers.
FISA claims it's to hold for court purposes, but the NSA can still search this data while they hold it. So it suits at least one purpose which I'm sure we agree with, but should have come with a very specific instruction like "knock off the bullshit, you treasonous bastards!".
Your version matches the summary on Wiki, however the evidence used in the trial was not simply related to the OS (except for whether or not Microsoft had lied about the browser being tied into the OS and required by the OS). Financial pressure may not have been exerted if not for the monopolization of the OS, but the antitrust case was not about the OS. I believe we are both correct, and your summary matches the Wiki.
Wrong again. Please do yourself a favor and read up on the cases so you don't continue to make incorrect generalizations . PACER has data, as does USDOJ.GOV, and several States. Groklaw.net had a tremendous amount of information as well.
I did not state that monopolies were illegal, I gave explicit wording to the effect of "predatory business practices" and "anti-trust" cases. I have studied many of these cases extensively, so your work is cut out for you if you wish to try and correct me.
That was a portion, but grossly and incorrectly over simplified. License deals prevented vendors from installing other browsers, and even when customers requested vendors could only install old versions of Netscape. The same lawsuit states that MS forced resellers to remove advertisements for competing products. This was not an issue of the OS, but an issue of licensing and finances.
MS has lost dozens of anti-trust cases world wide. Very few of those anti-trust cases against Microsoft were regarding the OS so your point flawed. The first and most well known was Netscape suing over MS's handling of IE and it's competition on PCs. The latest was Novell suing for destroying office and productivity apps more recently. You don't have to own the OS to have and use predatory business practices, Microsoft has proven that fact numerous times.
I couldn't agree more. There is no evidence to suggest that it's a malicious backdoor.
No evidence to the contrary either, and worth questioning since this is a common theme. Motorola was found to be sending all kinds of data to Motorola servers without user knowledge, including specific authentication information in plain text, Apple's SSL mess up, Countless MS back doors in just about everything they make. Then you have other players that made horrible decisions costing them their phone business.
At a point we should at least wonder if these things are really just accidental and sloppy, or are they working as influenced/intended. The more we find that companies are doing the same things, the less plausible the "accidental" theory looks.
How to actually find out is the hard part. Any company doing things for a fat check and favors from a government realizes that whistle blowers will lose future checks and favors. I'd be very interested in seeing all the files the government has on this, especially things like how many employees on Government payroll are working at places like Intel, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, etc (if any).. It's too bad the CIA and Senate fight won't do anything to open that door.
There was no such implication, the generalizations toward all politicians is very complete in the first paragraph. Obama is particularly mentioned because in the last 2 years he has done no other business in California except to attend fund raisers. No town hall meetings, no speeches, just money grubbing. Since I live near Moffet Field we get the joy of seeing his every visit to that end and thumbing his nose at us regular citizens. If Bush was the acting President and was doing the same thing I would use him as the example.
Instead of pretending the comment was something, why not read the words do a better job of gauging the comment.
Except it's not "for the good of the country", that's just the rhetorical propaganda used constantly. It is usually for the good of themselves, followed by their kind. Plenty of documentation exists in this regard, such as passing laws contrary to their election platform to generate campaign contributions. Worse in my opinion is using tax money to set up and run fund raisers, like Obama has done on every single trip he has ever taken to California where he does nothing else.
It's hard for people to see the rhetoric as propaganda since it's repeated all the time. I know many people that are happy to see Obama come to the SF Bay area 4 times a year to set up 20K plus a plate dinners, because they think he's working on his 1 day junkets. Why? Because the TV media refuses to discuss it or tell people what he's really doing for the most part. Our "Talk" radio stations discuss it but, well, it's talk radio and has a select audience.
Anyway, I don't think you are necessarily wrong but neither was the person you responded to. Pretty much, everything these people do is for self benefit and self preservation. They will use any sales pitch that works toward that end and they will continue until people wise up. I believe people are catching on to whats happening.
There is a huge problem claiming that payments to medicare are "individual checks". Those checks don't do to the individual, they go to companies and corporations. ACA won't change this, it simply tries to put people of lower risk into the government insurance pool. That said, it's kind of like claiming that Blue Cross pays out individuals. They collect money from individuals and pay medical businesses, exactly like the government does with collecting tax money to pay companies. No point arguing the merits for or against ACA here, that is a different debate from this (I believe you realize this, but others may see opportunity).
The interesting factoid in the article is how the people in the top 1% of income earned annually also receive over 10Billion in funding from the Government.
The part of this I believe might be nerdy is questioning both TFAs summary and the article referenced. It's wrong and written as a click-troll story. There are a few interesting factoids in the article but nothing that backs their summary that individuals are getting all these nice fat checks.
I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.
Obviously, there are alleged experts that testify towards all kinds of illogical things when the price is right. Liberal leaning professors are not "new" in Universities or the market place. If you can't understand the language being pointed out to you, that's your issue to resolve. Quixley has a nice book about exactly that type of manipulation, as does Gary Allen, Mark Dice, Stefan Molynoux, and countless others. If you don't look for bias you will never see it. Here is your chance to learn.
I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.
The evidence is blatantly obvious. "People" existed before the United States of America, "People" wrote and ratified the Constitution before it existed. None of those "People" were necessarily citizens because the country did not exist when the first documents were written. See "Declaration of Independence" for a start but numerous other similar documents record the same exact verbiage.
As stated previously, and the logical questions should be, "Why would they use specific language in one section and not in the other?" and "Why would a word used in one section or document differ from it's use in another?" They were written by the same people for the same purpose, which was founding a new Country.
Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies
I don't believe it's uncalled for. People often cite the definition of voting, which was biased, to distract from the question of what "We the People" is supposed to mean, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for distractions. Those voting biases surely exist in the document but don't pertain to the question of "what does People mean in the founding documents?".
If it was just one instance, I probably would not have mentioned it. That statement was followed by several other questionable statements and you finished with a false statement. For that reason it appears to be written for the sole purpose of giving a red herring. If that was not your intent, try staying within the question of language or perhaps be more clear on how it relates to what you are trying to claim in regards to the term "People". In fact read that whole amendment again, because the language is extremely clear.
The Ben Franklin example I gave was to the purpose of showing the definition of the term and it's application. There is historical significance to this if you study of Ben Franklin and his diplomatic visits to France.
For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.
As with your other voting rights comment this is simply a biased red herring made to distract. It has no historical merit beyond your imagination, and 5 seconds contemplation should tell you how idiotic this statement is, if you study any history that is. For example there was a large number of the founders did not believe in slavery and it was a highly debated issue. The primary reason to include it in the voting rights portion of the Constitution was for finances and appeas
Oh, and I'm not much shorter than my 6'3" son. I used him as an example since he's taller and has no problems like you claim to have. I have friends ranging from 5' even to 6'7" and nobody I know has that issue because of their height.
If you are looking down people's shirts while talking to them then you are doing it wrong. Stop sneaking up behind people and peeking to talk to them.
My son keeps a respectable pace when speaking to someone, and generally talks to them to their face so no he does not look down women's shirts to talk to them. Eye contact is critical for normal conversation.
I believe you may think cleavage is boobs though, so are confused on more than just keeping a respectable distance or where to put your eyes when talking. Perhaps you are visiting a strip club daily, work at a brothel, or some such.
Nope, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. I'm going to extract something from the Wiki here for simplicity. Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier. There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.
From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.
If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men. The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".
I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."
Persons living in the US would be considered "people" and anyone can keep and bear arms under that amendment whether citizens or not. I think you need to read some history to see who owned guns and who was in the country fighting during the Revolutionary war and even the war of 1812, wars against Indians, war with Mexico, and helk even the Civil War. Here is a hint, it was not a couple rich white guys fighting themselves in these wars.
Your last statement also contains false information. Read the US Constitution again, because person is not mentioned in limiting the Federal Governments powers. States are given authority that the Federal Government does not have.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that even mentioning this on /. gets you modded to oblivion, but the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world -- and they're not out there looking to bust heads and turn off their cameras...
I happen to agree with this perspective, but do notice a huge difference in training Police get today compared to when I was growing up long long ago. Police today are trained to believe that everyone out there is criminal. Not all officers buy into this, but it is being taught and drilled into them. Police are also taught that they are supposed to stick together no matter what. In the 60s and 70s this happened to some degree but it was not discussed as training material and only used when questionable methods were used to catch real criminals. Unlike today where cops are filmed beating a mentally unstable homeless person to death, or shooting a def person for not obeying voice commands, and fellow officers don't speak out.
I'm not biased, and will tell you openly that the majority of people claiming police abuse on youtube are deserving of brash treatment and crossed the line. I also believe that most people joining the force have good intentions.
I think the cameras will help, but as you mention only when they can not be tampered with. I think the training officers receive should revert back to decades ago where they are grilled that their job is to defend and respect is earned even with a uniform. I believe cops that turn whistle blower should be given medals and receive praise to boot.
No offense, but I think you are missing the significance of Epoch time in thinking this. Even if you stated something like "math is related to computing" the number systems are different. Base 10 vs. Base 2 and all that.
To very few of us it's "Happy 4 * atan(1) Day!"
The US has never been a Democracy, it's been a Democratic Republic. A Republic closely matching the definition in the book by the same name authored by Plato in ancient Greece over 2,500 years ago. If you wish to appear pedantic at least do so correctly. Study the book, it's pretty amazing how close we got until the government was successfully undermined. Socrates describes human nature in that book too. Reading that book is discouraged and the knowledge it contains is not well known. Most people don't read the book, and most people that claim to have read it have only browsed a couple chapters.
Don't mistake what I said, I never claimed US Government was perfect. I said it was as close to a perfect government as we have seen. Humans have been trying to undermine it constantly because it would distribute power if it actually worked as Socrates defined.
Finding two witnesses is a simple task. Start with the whistle blowers and work your way out. Of course they will need to declassify data in order for us to have "proof" of their wrong doing, but that's a court issue not a Constitutional issue.
As to the NSA declaring war on America lets run down a list. If they have been planting malware on computers in the US they have waged war against their own country and destroyed property of US citizens. If they have spied on Americans against the 4th amendment they have declared war on America. If they have handed data on US citizens to foreign agencies (which they have done), and compromised the integrity and credibility of the government they have further declared war on the Republic. If they have caused undue harm to US citizens by violating their basic human rights they have declared war on America.
Their declaration of war is exactly what people claim "terrorists" have done to declare war on the US. The difference is really one of scale where the NSA is far worse. And before you make a silly statement, "terrorists" are not a country so it is not an official declaration of war being referred to in the "War on Terror" either.
Shows my age, but every time I see this acronym I see "VCL". and not VLC.
Well stated. If the judge told them to put it on an encrypted device where they didn't have the keys I'd feel much better.
We have one, but need a court to hear the case and an attorney with enough power to get the case to court. The latter is the problem, not the former.
I do know what the word means, do you know what both the NSA and FISA courts have been doing which compromises the integrity of our Democratic Republic form of Government? You do not see how smear campaigns based on illegally obtained information breaks the Democracy?
Yes they are treasonous, do some homework.
People are not mad about the NSA investigating Iran's centrifuges they are mad at how the NSA is abusing powers to spy on everyone in the world, and sell data which reduces liberty and democracy world wide. They are mad about FISA courts becoming a rubber stamp organization for this agency to abuse it's powers.
FISA claims it's to hold for court purposes, but the NSA can still search this data while they hold it. So it suits at least one purpose which I'm sure we agree with, but should have come with a very specific instruction like "knock off the bullshit, you treasonous bastards!".
Your version matches the summary on Wiki, however the evidence used in the trial was not simply related to the OS (except for whether or not Microsoft had lied about the browser being tied into the OS and required by the OS). Financial pressure may not have been exerted if not for the monopolization of the OS, but the antitrust case was not about the OS. I believe we are both correct, and your summary matches the Wiki.
Wrong again. Please do yourself a favor and read up on the cases so you don't continue to make incorrect generalizations . PACER has data, as does USDOJ.GOV, and several States. Groklaw.net had a tremendous amount of information as well.
I did not state that monopolies were illegal, I gave explicit wording to the effect of "predatory business practices" and "anti-trust" cases. I have studied many of these cases extensively, so your work is cut out for you if you wish to try and correct me.
That was a portion, but grossly and incorrectly over simplified. License deals prevented vendors from installing other browsers, and even when customers requested vendors could only install old versions of Netscape. The same lawsuit states that MS forced resellers to remove advertisements for competing products. This was not an issue of the OS, but an issue of licensing and finances.
MS has lost dozens of anti-trust cases world wide. Very few of those anti-trust cases against Microsoft were regarding the OS so your point flawed. The first and most well known was Netscape suing over MS's handling of IE and it's competition on PCs. The latest was Novell suing for destroying office and productivity apps more recently. You don't have to own the OS to have and use predatory business practices, Microsoft has proven that fact numerous times.
I couldn't agree more. There is no evidence to suggest that it's a malicious backdoor.
No evidence to the contrary either, and worth questioning since this is a common theme. Motorola was found to be sending all kinds of data to Motorola servers without user knowledge, including specific authentication information in plain text, Apple's SSL mess up, Countless MS back doors in just about everything they make. Then you have other players that made horrible decisions costing them their phone business.
At a point we should at least wonder if these things are really just accidental and sloppy, or are they working as influenced/intended. The more we find that companies are doing the same things, the less plausible the "accidental" theory looks.
How to actually find out is the hard part. Any company doing things for a fat check and favors from a government realizes that whistle blowers will lose future checks and favors. I'd be very interested in seeing all the files the government has on this, especially things like how many employees on Government payroll are working at places like Intel, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, etc (if any).. It's too bad the CIA and Senate fight won't do anything to open that door.
There was no such implication, the generalizations toward all politicians is very complete in the first paragraph. Obama is particularly mentioned because in the last 2 years he has done no other business in California except to attend fund raisers. No town hall meetings, no speeches, just money grubbing. Since I live near Moffet Field we get the joy of seeing his every visit to that end and thumbing his nose at us regular citizens. If Bush was the acting President and was doing the same thing I would use him as the example.
Instead of pretending the comment was something, why not read the words do a better job of gauging the comment.
Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
Except it's not "for the good of the country", that's just the rhetorical propaganda used constantly. It is usually for the good of themselves, followed by their kind. Plenty of documentation exists in this regard, such as passing laws contrary to their election platform to generate campaign contributions. Worse in my opinion is using tax money to set up and run fund raisers, like Obama has done on every single trip he has ever taken to California where he does nothing else.
It's hard for people to see the rhetoric as propaganda since it's repeated all the time. I know many people that are happy to see Obama come to the SF Bay area 4 times a year to set up 20K plus a plate dinners, because they think he's working on his 1 day junkets. Why? Because the TV media refuses to discuss it or tell people what he's really doing for the most part. Our "Talk" radio stations discuss it but, well, it's talk radio and has a select audience.
Anyway, I don't think you are necessarily wrong but neither was the person you responded to. Pretty much, everything these people do is for self benefit and self preservation. They will use any sales pitch that works toward that end and they will continue until people wise up. I believe people are catching on to whats happening.
There is a huge problem claiming that payments to medicare are "individual checks". Those checks don't do to the individual, they go to companies and corporations. ACA won't change this, it simply tries to put people of lower risk into the government insurance pool. That said, it's kind of like claiming that Blue Cross pays out individuals. They collect money from individuals and pay medical businesses, exactly like the government does with collecting tax money to pay companies. No point arguing the merits for or against ACA here, that is a different debate from this (I believe you realize this, but others may see opportunity).
The interesting factoid in the article is how the people in the top 1% of income earned annually also receive over 10Billion in funding from the Government.
The part of this I believe might be nerdy is questioning both TFAs summary and the article referenced. It's wrong and written as a click-troll story. There are a few interesting factoids in the article but nothing that backs their summary that individuals are getting all these nice fat checks.
I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.
Obviously, there are alleged experts that testify towards all kinds of illogical things when the price is right. Liberal leaning professors are not "new" in Universities or the market place. If you can't understand the language being pointed out to you, that's your issue to resolve. Quixley has a nice book about exactly that type of manipulation, as does Gary Allen, Mark Dice, Stefan Molynoux, and countless others. If you don't look for bias you will never see it. Here is your chance to learn.
I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.
The evidence is blatantly obvious. "People" existed before the United States of America, "People" wrote and ratified the Constitution before it existed. None of those "People" were necessarily citizens because the country did not exist when the first documents were written. See "Declaration of Independence" for a start but numerous other similar documents record the same exact verbiage.
As stated previously, and the logical questions should be, "Why would they use specific language in one section and not in the other?" and "Why would a word used in one section or document differ from it's use in another?" They were written by the same people for the same purpose, which was founding a new Country.
Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies
I don't believe it's uncalled for. People often cite the definition of voting, which was biased, to distract from the question of what "We the People" is supposed to mean, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for distractions. Those voting biases surely exist in the document but don't pertain to the question of "what does People mean in the founding documents?".
If it was just one instance, I probably would not have mentioned it. That statement was followed by several other questionable statements and you finished with a false statement. For that reason it appears to be written for the sole purpose of giving a red herring. If that was not your intent, try staying within the question of language or perhaps be more clear on how it relates to what you are trying to claim in regards to the term "People". In fact read that whole amendment again, because the language is extremely clear.
The Ben Franklin example I gave was to the purpose of showing the definition of the term and it's application. There is historical significance to this if you study of Ben Franklin and his diplomatic visits to France.
For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.
As with your other voting rights comment this is simply a biased red herring made to distract. It has no historical merit beyond your imagination, and 5 seconds contemplation should tell you how idiotic this statement is, if you study any history that is. For example there was a large number of the founders did not believe in slavery and it was a highly debated issue. The primary reason to include it in the voting rights portion of the Constitution was for finances and appeas
Oh, and I'm not much shorter than my 6'3" son. I used him as an example since he's taller and has no problems like you claim to have. I have friends ranging from 5' even to 6'7" and nobody I know has that issue because of their height.
If you are looking down people's shirts while talking to them then you are doing it wrong. Stop sneaking up behind people and peeking to talk to them.
My son keeps a respectable pace when speaking to someone, and generally talks to them to their face so no he does not look down women's shirts to talk to them. Eye contact is critical for normal conversation.
I believe you may think cleavage is boobs though, so are confused on more than just keeping a respectable distance or where to put your eyes when talking. Perhaps you are visiting a strip club daily, work at a brothel, or some such.
Nope, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. I'm going to extract something from the Wiki here for simplicity. Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier. There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.
From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.
If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men. The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".
I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."
Persons living in the US would be considered "people" and anyone can keep and bear arms under that amendment whether citizens or not. I think you need to read some history to see who owned guns and who was in the country fighting during the Revolutionary war and even the war of 1812, wars against Indians, war with Mexico, and helk even the Civil War. Here is a hint, it was not a couple rich white guys fighting themselves in these wars.
Your last statement also contains false information. Read the US Constitution again, because person is not mentioned in limiting the Federal Governments powers. States are given authority that the Federal Government does not have.
Those things are already glorified, turn on the TV. The Sopranos and Game of Thrones are nothing compared to prime time television!