It seems clear to most reasonable people that the second amendment gives states the right to retain their own military forces. It has nothing to do with individual gun ownership. For one, you're talking about a bunch of entities that just fought a war to be free of a central government. They weren't about to disarm themselves entirely for the newly created American federal government, just in case the federal goverment became a new tyrant. Also, to "bear arms" was a phrase of the day that meant military service. You don't "bear arms" against deer and woodchucks; you "bear arms" when you go to war. The fact that it's almost unthinkable today for individual states to maintain a seperate military is just more proof that the second amendment is a historical curiousity from an age that vanished a long time ago. If you're still not convinced, consider this: even the NRA does't base their court challenges on the second amendment. Sure, they make a lot of noise about it among the rank and file, but when it becomes time to step into the courtroom, they generally use the fourth amendment (illegal search and seizure). I'm not saying that individual gun ownership is necessarily a bad thing. I don't have any problem with responsible gun owners. But it's not what the second amendment is about.
I haven't lived in Vancouver, but I have lived in several other Canadian cities, including Ottawa and Toronto, which are both known as expensive cities for Canada.
I've also lived in Redmond, and I can tell you for certain that the cost of living there is FAR higher than anyplace I've seen in Canada. Everything is more expensive there, and the housing prices are just ludicrous.
I'm making a wage that would allow me to live like a lord in Canada, especially with the exchange rate. Here, it's enough to get by, but not much more.
I have to wonder if someone included a currency exchange in that program and forgot to tell the site administrators. If you do a rough approximation by multliplying the Canadian numbers by 66% you get a result which is much closer to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems clear to most reasonable people that the second amendment gives states the right to retain their own military forces. It has nothing to do with individual gun ownership. For one, you're talking about a bunch of entities that just fought a war to be free of a central government. They weren't about to disarm themselves entirely for the newly created American federal government, just in case the federal goverment became a new tyrant. Also, to "bear arms" was a phrase of the day that meant military service. You don't "bear arms" against deer and woodchucks; you "bear arms" when you go to war. The fact that it's almost unthinkable today for individual states to maintain a seperate military is just more proof that the second amendment is a historical curiousity from an age that vanished a long time ago. If you're still not convinced, consider this: even the NRA does't base their court challenges on the second amendment. Sure, they make a lot of noise about it among the rank and file, but when it becomes time to step into the courtroom, they generally use the fourth amendment (illegal search and seizure). I'm not saying that individual gun ownership is necessarily a bad thing. I don't have any problem with responsible gun owners. But it's not what the second amendment is about.
That must be why you couldn't actually refute his argument, eh?
I haven't lived in Vancouver, but I have lived in several other Canadian cities, including Ottawa and Toronto, which are both known as expensive cities for Canada.
I've also lived in Redmond, and I can tell you for certain that the cost of living there is FAR higher than anyplace I've seen in Canada. Everything is more expensive there, and the housing prices are just ludicrous.
I'm making a wage that would allow me to live like a lord in Canada, especially with the exchange rate. Here, it's enough to get by, but not much more.
I have to wonder if someone included a currency exchange in that program and forgot to tell the site administrators. If you do a rough approximation by multliplying the Canadian numbers by 66% you get a result which is much closer to reality.