Quote:

---

No worries, Kwicko. Posting on the RWE is always a toss of the dice in terms of arguments and such.

---

Quote:

---

And I meant to say other side of the state, but somehow it seems much cooler that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
True. Let us get back to topic.


I have a question: Why did the "Wild West" fail?

I mean, there was plenty of land, and very little laws. Everyone was armed.

How did it turn from that almost utopian society to this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!

---

Quote:

---

You want specifics ?
Easy enough.

The "Militia" of the United States is us, all of us, any of us, both willing and able to pick up and use a firearm at all - this was universally understood and acknowledged by both Federalist and AntiFederalists to a point where it was generally assumed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nvghostrider:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.

---

Quote:

---

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.

---

But the whole militia argument is rendered moot in the first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision.

Quote:

---

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

---

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So? They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done.

---

Quote:

---

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling?

---

Quote:

---

They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done. I was talking about what the founding fathers may have meant based on the language they used, not how the supreme court reads it after ignoring half of what was written. When trying to work out it's meaning for myself, I'm not willing to ignore the bits I don't like, or do like, or whatever. So the supreme court is, bully for them.

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling? Assuming "to bear arms" meant "private gun ownership" (it didn't), the phrasing is clear in the amendment...

---

Quote:

---

See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275
(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves
and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20
(1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear
arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art.
I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.
Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a
right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,
Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear
arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23
(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4
id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them-
selves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh,
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. &
Politics 191 (2006).

---

Quote:

---

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

---

Quote:

---

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

---

Quote:

---

mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, Cit, but your opinion is not law. The Supreme Court's, on the other hand, is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, I respectfully disagree.

As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's not "ignoring" half the Amendment, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.

---

Quote:

---

So, by any rational definition of the word, I *AM* part of the militia, since I am eligible by law and am able to be called.

One thing seems pretty clear - in order to be in ANY kind of militia, first you have to have the ability as an individual to keep and bear arms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Bingo. I may not agree with their decisions, but their decisions are final, barring a Constitutional Amendment to override them.

So, Cit, since I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount in 2000, then I don't have to officially recognize that Bush is the President of the United States? Can I now stop paying my taxes and abiding by the laws of the United States, because I don't agree that he's the President?

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't, however, challenge the idea of having licensing requirements. It's NOT the "Wild West", where anyone and everyone can have a gun. It's a reaffirmation that law-abiding citizens needn't be criminalized en masse for doing what their Constitution guarantees them the right to do.

---

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this, Cit: Would you support licensing laws and requirements, or membership in a well-regulated group, in order to exercise your right to peaceably assemble? Or do you believe that THAT right is universal, but other Constitutional rights somewhat less so?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry Geezer, but your opinion isn't better than mine, no matter how much you wish it so. I also don't care one iota about what the US supreme court says or doesn't say.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

At the end of the day, my opinion of what the Founding Fathers meant is just as good as the Supreme Courts.

---

Quote:

---

I was merely talking about how I think the Second Amendment was meant...

---

Quote:

---

Also, in the constitution it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is integral to the up keep of the well regulated Militia...

---

Quote:

---

2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” That definition comports
with founding-era sources. The Feder-
alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)
(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”);
Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable
Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he
militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able
to bear arms”).

Opinion of the Court
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump-
tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and
the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden-
tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia.
Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the
power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a
Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not
to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid.,
cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition
of the militia as all able-bodied men. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of
a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-
regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in the use of firearms.

---

Quote:

---

b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or com-
munity.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference
to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia
is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that
the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to
individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state”
and close variations seem to have been terms of art in
18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free coun-
try’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security
of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see,
e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15,
1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen
& G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other in-
stances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accom-
panied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to
the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any
state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no
state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in
Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did
not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan-
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

---

Quote:

---

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-
bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitu-
tion. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters
from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The
Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).
John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s
“command of the militia” could be used to create a “select
militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a sepa-
rate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the
people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary
History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M.
Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Feder-
alists responded that because Congress was given no
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep
and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the peo-
ple. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed.,
2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of
Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of
America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the
Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in
id., at 556. It was understood across the political spec-
trum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen
militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive
military force if the constitutional order broke down.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amend-
ment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the mili-
tia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codi-
fied in a written Constitution.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second
Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel prin-
cipl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our
English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275,
281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even
achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification
of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment
right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as
a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petitition-
ers 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—
it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a
safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary
authority to organize the militia, which must include the
authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17
That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only
whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to
exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s
Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev.
477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the
Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in
an organization from which Congress has plenary author-
ity to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the
sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s
militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

---

In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.

---

Quote:

---

And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).

---

Quote:

---

YOU say "they ignored half the Amendment" - but clearly, they didn't ignore it; they argued it quite vociferously.

---

Quote:

---

So far, you've come up with no better argument against it than, "But that's not the way I feel, so that settles it. Anything else is irrelevant."

---

Quote:

---

Our whole army are retreated to the Isle a Noix a little on this side St. Johns, 1500 of them have the Small Pox, out of three Regiments not more than fifty able to bear Arms, we hope to keep possession of the Lakes.

---

Quote:

---

Whereas the commanders of British armed vessels have impressed many American seamen, and compelled them to bear arms on board said vessels, and assist in fighting their battles with nations in amity and peace with the United States; and also brought into British ports, for adjudication, many merchant vessels, sailing under the flag, and owned by citizens of the said United States, where some have been a long time unjustly detained, and others condemned, contrary to justice and the law of nations: For remedy whereof,

---

Quote:

---

"Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

---

Quote:

---

If it's your contention that owning firearms be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms, I'm right there with ya.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

---

Quote:

---

Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed.

---

Quote:

---

I've been waiting to slam you. So appologize because I will stay on you.

---

Quote:

---

Stop trying to be smart cause your not.

---

Quote:

---

Learn something thats not what someone told you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

---

Quote:

---

...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.

Sad little king of a sad little hill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But hey, throwing a tempertantrum...

---

Quote:

---

Well, it's you that said your opinion was worthless (you also said mine was)...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

---

Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Second-Guessing authority is about the most American of passtimes, and Citizen is welcome to do it, as are we all. The mere act almost makes him an honorary Yank. ;-)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
you think because the 'authorities' have ruled, the topic is no longer open for discussion,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?

---

No. But they're probably more effective at properly running a mob than you and I are. That's how they got to be the bosses.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
... so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are. Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better. Can you tell me that Supreme Court Justices are all like that? Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
And that would make their opinion on something more credible....how?

---

Quote:

---

...so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are.

---

Quote:

---

Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better.

---

Quote:

---

Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

I just figure that, due to their education and experience, they have a better chance of correctly interpreting Constitutional questions than the rest of us. This is based on the general observation that anyone who has training and experience in a particular skill, and who has risen through their efforts to the highest position in that particular skill, probably knows more about it than someone who hasn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, while I agree with the Supremem Courts decision...we are assuming that they have legality.

As far as I remember, the Supreme Court was not mentioned in the Constitution.

It has something to do with a there being a governing body that has "authority" over states rights. And the Founding Fathers not wanting that.

---

Quote:

---

From the Constitution of the United States of America:


Article 3.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I have a problem with them ruling that the Amendment actually says:
"The right of the people to keep Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Quote:

---

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

---

Quote:

---

I think that the Founding Fathers probably intended that each state would operate a militia, a non-standing army that nonetheless is trained in military tactics and manoeuvres. I think that for a State to not operate a Militia, as many don't, is just as unconstitutional as a hand gun ban in DC is. I think the implication is that people who wish to own weapons, should be compulsorily trained in their use. So yeah, I think "owning firearms [should] be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When do we outlaw the automobile? Surely no one truly NEEDS a car any more - we have buses, planes, boats, trains, cabs - there's ALWAYS some way to get around that doesn't require you to own your own vehicle - but you wouldn't want to give that up, would you? And that doesn't even take into account the environmental damage that cars do!

---