In my younger days, I would have. That was before I had a family and responsibilities of course, LOL. I've been to Montreal before, years ago when I lived in upstate New York.

I also journeyed to Montreal when I lived in upstate NY, and I envy all of you living there since I found it to have bar none the most beautiful women of any city I've ever been to.

So I make fun of the Francophones because I am secretly jealous.

Most beautiful women? I'll give them second place, yes. When I lived in Colombia, there resided the MOST beautiful women of the world... so I married one, LOL.

I'm sure your wife loves that you find her relatively interchangeable attractiveness-wise with her countrywomen. :)

Great back and forth there!

Montreal is a pretty fantastic city. I've had the chance to travel a bit, and I still consider it one of the best places to live in. And I too believe that it has very little competition where beautiful women are concerned. Having said that, my wife is from Calgary (though her Dad is originally from here).
I don't believe we've had much occasions to meet, first Apple. Where are you from originally, and what are you doing in Florida now? And how did you land in Colombia?

@SacredDigits: Call me a frog one more time you f***er! I dare you! ;-)

@Cachimbo - I was born in Germany, grew up all across America and lived in several countries (including Canada just across the border from Montana) but the one I loved most was Colombia. It was a fate-driven trip, the opportunity sprung itself and I had no tie-downs here in America so I went. Didn't know a word of Spanish as the time but picked it up fluently in the two years I was there.

Yeah, I've noticed you speak a fair number of languages. SD was also pointing that out to me earlier.
Sounds like you have quite the life story. Looking forward to learning more about you when we get the chance to play one another.

If I happen to be in Colombia and suddenly someone throws a hood over my head and forces me into a car at gunpoint, can I say "conozco a FirstApple" and they will let me go?

That reminds me of something that actually happened to me.

When I lived in Buffalo, I dated a woman who worked for the Canadian customs. One day, after going over to Fort Erie, I by dumb luck pulled up to her booth. My friend Dan (who did not know her) was in the car. I answered every question completely insanely, for instance, "Do you have any weapons?" "What do you need?" And so on. We played it totally straight, while he was sitting next to me shitting a brick. So after we pull away, he asks, "What the hell are you doing?"

"Oh, they like it if you joke with them a little, otherwise, their days are boring."

Fast forward to two weeks later when he went across by himself, and didn't speak to me for ten years afterward.

@Hanged Man - haha, not likely. They'll probably keep you even longer. LOL

@SD - ouch, that wasn't a very nice thing to do. You never did set the record straight with him afterwards?

@ Santa

"The people of the united states are scared you and your you buddies are going to go to the mall one day and use your "battle rifles" to kill a shit load of innocent civilians."

A) The people of the United States are not scared of me and my buddies.
B) Why would we shoot up a mall? We have permits for our guns, which means we don't have any psychological problems that might cause us to shoot up a mall.

@ Putin33

"I was simply pointing out you have a highly selective idea of what counts as protecting civil liberties."

For all you know, I could be opposed to the Patriot Act, so saying that I am selective when it comes to civil liberties is absurd.

"You apparently have no idea what that phrase means."

No, *you* have no idea what the phase means. It says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There is a comma immediately preceding that part. That is a division, which means that the statement above is completely independent of the previous statement.

"And anyway notice your Supreme Court heroes only in the last couple of years came around to "agreeing" with your ridiculous interpretation, overturning centuries of precedent. So much for judicial restraint."

So? They did their fucking job, which is to interpret the Constitution, irrespective of previous decisions.

@FA: I had no idea that he would actually believe me. I did apologize to him when he started talking to me again, and he said that there was no hard feelings in the end.

"There is a comma immediately preceding that part. That is a division, which means that the statement above is completely independent of the previous statement." - Commas do not work that way. It is not correct to say "Since elephants live in Africa, cheese gives me gas." If you're going to write a sentence like that the first clause and the second need to be logically connected. So even though there is a comma separating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." there is still some logical connection between the two clauses. The connection between keeping and bearing arms and a well regulated militia however, only exists in that sentence. It no longer exists in reality.

"So? They did their fucking job, which is to interpret the Constitution, irrespective of previous decisions." I could be wrong about this, but ummm... I'm pretty sure that precedent is an important consideration in constitutional jurisprudence.

Yeah, the first part of the second amendment is a dependent clause, even, so it can't exist independently of the rest of the sentence.

""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." there is still some logical connection between the two clauses."

There is no logical connection. If militia members are the only ones entitled to bear arms, then why does it say "people"? Shouldn't it say "militiamen" or "soldiers"? The second clause can totally exist by itself. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes sense.

"The connection between keeping and bearing arms and a well regulated militia however, only exists in that sentence."

It does not exist in the sentence.

"It (the supposed connection) no longer exists in reality."

Thank God. The right to bear arms is the most important right in America.

"I'm pretty sure that precedent is an important consideration in constitutional jurisprudence."

In Brown v. Board of Education there was a lot of judicial precedent that said that black and whites shouldn't go to the same schools. Does that mean that Brown v. Board of Education was a bad decision?

Your interpretation is ludicrous but it's not surprising. 2nd Amendment nutters have to go to great lengths to wish the well regulated militia and the comma away.

"Bear arms" has a specific military connotation, which only makes sense in the context of a militia. People do not "bear arms" for personal use. "People" is a collective noun, meaning the people of the several states have the collective right to keep and bear arms in the form of the citizens' militias, and the citizens' militias should not be disbanded or allowed to become so poorly kept up that they are useless.

The meaning of the amendment is obvious from anyone who has ever bothered to read the debates surrounding the militia and the standing army during the ratification process. The anti-federalists, forces opposed to ratification, were concerned that the new constitution would lead to a permanent standing army and disarm the people's militia. Look at all the proposed amendments regarding this, and virtually all of them have some rant about standing armies being a threat to liberty, which is why they said that a militia is necessary in order to protect the freedom of the state, since standing armies are a threat to that freedom. The 2nd amendment was meant to ensure that the militias would not be dismantled, that the federal government would keep them in good order, provide them adequate training and provisions, etc. That's all that it means. If they wanted a personal right to carry whatever weapons they wanted, they would have made an amendment with that language, like they did in Pennsylvania and Vermont. They did not do so. There is no mention anywhere of concern about personal self-defense.

In order to believe your interpretation, we'd have to assume that some segment of the constitution was intended to have no effect and is mere surplusage with no meaning.

""So? They did their fucking job, which is to interpret the Constitution, irrespective of previous decisions." "

Really, so you're an unabashed judicial activist then. Good to know conservatives discard their principles whenever it is convenient. Every justice who has ever been confirmed is grilled by rightwing hypocrites ranting about the importance of stare decisis. But somehow when it comes to gun rights that all goes out the window.

"There is no logical connection. If militia members are the only ones entitled to bear arms, then why does it say "people"?" - Because at the time, the logistical challenge of arming a slapped together militia would have been insurmountable. You couldn't raise the money to buy them all weapons, you couldn't get the weapons shipped or manufactured quickly enough, it was just easier if everyone already had guns, and when they joined a quickly slapped together militia, brought them along.

""the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes sense." - Yes but "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a sentence fragment. It cannot exist independently of the second clause. The full thing is a single sentence. You can tell because it starts with a capital letter and ends with a period. And as we all know, a sentence is that which is defined as expressing a complete idea. Let me give a comparison. Let's say that it's the middle of winter and you're talking to your doctor and he suggests you start going for daily runs. And then he looks out the window and says "But since it's raining outside, you shouldn't go running today." The clause "you shouldn't go running today." can exist on it's own. Now, you go home, and your wife says "Oh what did the doctor say?" Would your answer be
A) He suggested I start jogging regularly.
or
B) He said under no circumstances should I run today.

Errr forget the thing about winter. I was originally going to go with the doctor saying there's ice on the ground and you shouldn't run, but then I absent mindedly switched to rain. Ugh.