The red and the blue

The right to bear arms does not equal the right to carry concealed arms. Nor do I think that in colonial days that was ever the custom. Rifles and muskets were carried openly. Pistols were generally large and unwieldy and were usually either military weapons used by cavalrymen or officers (emblems of authority) or were used for dueling. Dueling pistols were transported in nice little cases, other pistols were carried in big holsters, often on horses, or inserted into a sash.

Actually, there is no specification or restriction in the second amendment as to how arms may be carried. Most restrictions come from activist courts "interpreting" the constitution.

I understood your point, but I don't see any compromise where one group (in this case the leftists who want someone else to buy them a train) would be giving up nothing while the other group (the red zone) would not only have to "register" to carry what they've always carried anyway, but they would also have the tax burden of building a train that they would likely never see, let alone ride.

On the other hand, what the heck is wrong with light-rail transit for densely populated areas?

Nothing, assuming
1 It's a densely populated area(which the twin cities is not).
2 The people are willing to pay for it(our choo-choo train is going to cost $20.00 pre rider...one way)

I could go on about the "joys" of lightrail.

Thus the 2nd amendment, while clearly granting us the right to bear arms, does not clearly give us the right to carry concealed arms.

No flame intended, but why the problem with concealed?

I am personally strongly in favor of the concept of carrying concealed weapons. Thus I don't have a problem with it -- rather I favor it. I merely point out that this is not a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Carrying concealed firearms was not common at all in those days. Arms were carried openly when they were carried. So....if one desires to carry concealed weapons the 2nd amendment is not a good basis upon which to base an argument that it is a good idea.

I don't see any compromise where one group (in this case the leftists who want someone else to buy them a train) would be giving up nothing while the other group (the red zone) would not only have to "register" to carry what they've always carried anyway, but they would also have the tax burden of building a train that they would likely never see, let alone ride.

Well...in the "red zone" regions most people already have the right to carry handguns (in 33 states, I think.) It is those of us in the "blue zone" who want what our brethren in those 33 states already have. As for the tax burden - well, we all pay taxes for things far away. City people pay federal taxes for all those rural people living in flood plains in river valleys every 10 or 20 years to rebuild their houses after they get flooded out, the huge agricultural giveaways that go right to the rural states, the big interstates that cross those rural states; all those tax dollars going to national parks in rural states (very few in cities), etc. So that goes both ways.

Actually, I'm not all that impressed with light rail in general. It tends not to work that well in Northern cities that get lots of snow. But I was speaking to the general case of some horsetrading compromise as opposed to a specific case.

Well...in the "red zone" regions most people already have the right to carry handguns (in 33 states, I think.) It is those of us in the "blue zone" who want what our brethren in those 33 states already have. As for the tax burden - well, we all pay taxes for things far away. City people pay federal taxes for all those rural people living in flood plains in river valleys every 10 or 20 years to rebuild their houses after they get flooded out, the huge agricultural giveaways that go right to the rural states, the big interstates that cross those rural states; all those tax dollars going to national parks in rural states (very few in cities), etc. So that goes both ways.

As for the interstates, I think you'll find that city folk tend to benefit as much if not more than those out in the country from their existence. I don't beleive that the federal government should be in the flood insurance business. And I agree with you that you ought to have the right to carry concealed (and you do if you don't get caught - sort-of). But as for tax money and where it comes from and where it goes, you will find that for the most part, taxes at the federal, state, and local level tend to flow from the red zone to the blue (keeping in mind that not all "red" zones are way out in the country).

Actually, I'm not all that impressed with light rail in general. It tends not to work that well in Northern cities that get lots of snow. But I was speaking to the general case of some horsetrading compromise as opposed to a specific case.

Well, light rail does have its usefullness in some areas, but I don't know that it is really more efficient than a good bus system, given that busses can travel much closer to the homes of the people that would ride them. To the extent that people have to drive to the train station, the savings is negated. Plus, busses can use the same road network that cars and trucks can use so the infrastructure costs are much lower.

The January/February Atlantic Monthly brims with suggestions. One would endow each newborn with $6,000, an investment set aside for education, home-buying, retirement and so on. The intention is to combine minimalist government, personal responsibility and societal equity.

More government handouts will combine minimalist government, personal responsibility, and social equity?

liberals always confuse superficial differences (piercings, blue mohawks, tattoos) for actual individuality.

Nothing irritates a nonconformist more than another nonconformist who fails to conform to the prevailing standards of nonconformity.

Well...in the "red zone" regions most people already have the right to carry handguns (in 33 states, I think.)

Even in Minnesota, most people in the "red zone" counties have the right to carry. (And it's 32 states, right now. New Mexico passed a law, last year, but it was overturned by their Supreme Court).

In the early 19th century, there was an assumption that anyone who was carrying openly was an upstanding citizen, while anyone carrying concealed had criminal intent.

So the first gun control laws forbade carrying concealed.

There were state court decisions that found these laws to be unconstitutional and others that found them not to be.