You people must be 17 years old.

cause for this conclusion being...?

you confused, kid...

Yeah, and in Alabama you just get the permit to carry concealed. So many people here packing heat, crooks think twice(at least the smarter ones do)

With grammar like that I'm curious who is more confused. I didn't say I was libertarian, I said some of the ideas (smaller, less invasive government) appealed to me. I don't believe in anarchy, but I believe in individualism within a system. If that makes me confused in your eyes, then so be it.

Sorry, but that that doesn't include socialized medz or anything else really that the dems stand for. Until GW, it actually sounds like you'd be more likely to identify with the GOP who share "some of the (same) ideas" you have.

Well, Romania can be rough I guess. But that's a whole different ball game... extreme poverty explains a lot.
However, in pretty much all European countries including not-too-well-off Hungary, you only need to think about self-defense if you decide to ride through the sketchiest parts of a large city at night. Even then only if you're a bit paranoid.
There are ****ty neighborhoods here that I wouldn't like to walk through at night, but that's because of aggressive drunks more than armed robbers. Cycling is not much of a problem even in those areas. You're gone by the time anyone really notices you.

Getting killed for your bike... no bloody way unless you pull out a gun, the guy takes it away from you and uses it when you take out a knife as well... Realistically, you could get beaten up and that's it. I guess one could get fatally stabbed in a fight but that is more likely to happen in a bar fight anyway.

And that's how it should be IMO.

Wait a second? Liberal and narrow minded?

LIBERAL, and narrow minded?

God damn I hate America's mindset.

Also, I probably would never have a gun on me for any reason in any situation.

'thou shalt not kill' didn't have a side note of 'unless someone threatens you'. I don't see a need to carry a gun, move to a place where you don't have people threatening you, and you don't need a gun. Besides my family's hunting rifles, and police officer's guns, I've never seen one. I'm glad it will probably stay that way.

**** gunz.

Please don't criticize someone for stereotyping while stereotyping. There is no "American Mindset." I imagine your mindset is very different than your neighbor's. Nothing is different south of your border.

It is possible, but the GOP stands in direct opposition to the issues which I hold most important. Their official party line on the war, abortion, and the death penalty is enough to dissuade me from ever voting for them.

I'm going to have to... partially disagree... with you again.

The Federalist papers represent an effort on the part of three known primary authors (Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay) to encourage ratification... they represent one view-point, but not the only one. At the same time, you're correct in that they provide evidence of some pretty important/influential framers' perspective... they aren't definitive, but neither are they meaningless. But make no mistake, they were meant as propaganda (in response to the work of the anti-Federalists).

More problematically, the authors of the Federalist Papers weren't necessarily even in favor of the Bill of Rights (fearing it too limiting).

So... while influential as historical documents outlining some of the framers' views and motivations, the Federalist papers are not the be all and end all. They're one more source to be considered when determining Constitutional issues related to the Bill of Rights.

PS: you might also want to look into whether the colonies had militias, you'll find they did (I suspect you meant National Guard).

PS: I wanted to be clear I'm not picking on you likeahorse... my own interpretation is that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect individual's rights, not a collective right (the militia view)... although I recognize there may be a legitimate state interest in regulating handguns. Squaring the two is tricky...

It's good to find liberals that aren't crazy anti-gun types. And it's good to see a (more or less) civil discussion going on.

Missouri requires you to be 25 to get a concealed carry permit, but when I turn 21 I plan on buying a handgun and practicing.

That said if I end up going to school in Chicago you can kiss that goodbye.

Im confused by most of what you wrote here. If you were on a group ride and some dude tried to knock you off your bike why didnt you and all of your friends do something about it? That area you were in is not a very sketchy neighbor hood at all. I work and ride down there almost every single day. Young professionals and bros out on the town occupy that area. Do you attend MSOE?

Im not saying you didnt almost get jacked and I dont mean any offense. Its just hard for me to understand why you would be riding so close to someone in the middle of a well lit steet, with your friends, and have something like this happen.

P.S. I think I saw you on the Eastside the other day. If you see a Jamis Sputnik with gold bars come say Hi. My names RJ.

I think the implication was that he had been on a group ride, but was riding alone at that point?

I dunno...

**EDITED my first paragraph out so that I don't have to have another political argument...

But... people on this thread keep writing "I wouldn't carry a gun to protect my bike"... This is not the point.. The act of being robbed or beaten is in itself the reason to protect yourself. Its not about the bike or the money. Its about the theory that you have a right to walk (or ride) down a street without becoming a victim. You have a right to live safely.

There's no need for that kind of language TS...

chicago / humboldt park.

^homophobe and bigot... weakness of character.

exactly.

you guys seem like you want to be "tough guys" that would kill for an IRO. that's just stupid.

Huh? I don't remember a single person saying they would kill for their bike.

when people respond to a post talking about someone trying to jack their bike with talk of packing heat while riding their bicycles, there seems to be an implication raised related to using their firearms to defend their bicycles against would-be thieves.

having read the entire thread I'm willing to accept that's not what's being suggested, but it could come across that way.

^wow, cool response. we're actually not arguing!