Posted on 02/09/2003 6:37:47 AM PST by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:38:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Nearly every day I cross the border from one America to the other, from what commentators with maps began describing after the 2000 election as Red America to Blue America.
Blue America voted mostly for Al Gore and hugs the heavily populated coasts. Its parts are connected by a thin archipelago that includes the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Red America is the vast sea that covers everything else, from the Sierras to the prairies to the Appalachian Mountains. This is George Bush country, and includes nearly all of the nation's booming suburbs and sparse rural areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
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.
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.
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).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.