Official Things about Wisc and reality (Madison, Jefferson: section 8, credit, lawyer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of you are going to assume that I am a liberal or progressive or whatever. I like all the rest of you am an American by birth and Constitutional right and by the grace of God a native Wisconsinite. And if you are a religious person it should not matter what your politics are because God's word and the Bible state very clearly.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor. Therefore if you don't know it for a fact or can prove it through factual documentation YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT another person is like as a person and therefore you are bearing false witness.
Judge not lest ye be judged. Again assuming because someone disagrees with you, your organization or belief does not make them a bad or evil or whatever negatives (Their all the same) you care to apply bad person. To do assume is to judge them falsely.
Commandment 12 (as given to us by Jesus himself - Read the New Testament) LOVE they neighbor as thyself. Would you rant and rave against yourself or think the thoughts you think about "those people" if those people were you or your immediate family?
The bottom line is that it is real easy to lash out at someone because they disagree with you or you disagree with them, but is this WJWD? It is more important to wear your faith on your heart than on your sleeve!!! As most religious people will tell you it is not enough to say you are a person of faith you must live it every day.
In the end how you treat and judge others is how HE will judge you. Remember you are not forgiven unless HE DECIDES YOU ARE on judgement day.
Ok enough of the sermon
As Americans we are all entitled to our opinions and the right to express them. People can disagree of course but if you disagree it should be in a rationale, reasonable and hopefully respectful manner no matter what side of the fence you are on. The preamble to the Constitution and the first Amendment provide for it as does any person with a conscience.
As Wisconsinites we should live by our state motto "Forward". When I was in school a long time ago, it was part of the school systems policy to implant in our heads that this word was not just a word but a state of mind. It was our job to move Wisconsin forward through the democratic process and to do what needed to be done so that all Wisconsinites would have a chance to better themselves and not be neglected. This is not a liberal philosophy but a article of faith both personal and religious.
We were taught the importance of our natural resources and education.
A few historical markers worthy of Wisconsin and its people -
We were one of the first states to regulate nursing homes.
We were one of the first states to regulate mental health institutions
We were the 2nd state in the Union to provide life sentences to commercial poachers
We had some of the strongest natural resource law in the country.
We were one of the few states in the country to have open primaries.
Our colleges and universities were some of the best in the country.
We provided more opportunities for immigrants in this state during the 19th century than most and it was those immigrants (your grand and great grandparents who built this state and country)
We are the home of the Republican Party - No not that one. This Republican Party sought freedom for slaves, equal rights for all citizens, the ability to provide equal opportunities for all citizens including slaves, former immigrants, Indians and everyone else. The other Republican Party began to take root after the Grant administration.
We are the home of the Progressive Party - No not Democratic. The Progressive Party as I understand it was a middle of the road party which took the best ideas of both and used them.
Why because Wisconsin moves forward.
Stuff
It is all well and fine to complain about "the government" but on the issue of taxes remember this. This country has one of the lowest tax rates in the world overall. The government does not (regardless of what you may think) have this secret cache of money until the Washington Monument) runs on revenue and every time taxes are lowered, the government has to do more with less and thereby becomes more inept. Regardless of what you think, right now, Americans pay less in taxes than 50 years ago adding inflation to the equation. Some people think the government can run on no taxes, can you function with no money?
If you want to do something about taxes and the government here are two radical (?) ideas.
Only elect those people who sign contracts agreeing to work for their employers (us) and work to make the government more efficient by looking for and eliminating waste in government like the Defense Department (personal knowledge and experience) and establish a system through laws or even a Constitutional amendment whereby requests for funding must have proven value. This may result in higher taxes but at least the money will go where its needed and not into some fat cats pocket. This idea about funding is neither radical nor new. The first government to suggest such a thing that I am aware of is the Eisenhower. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.
My next point has to do with recent events. The NRA and its allies would have you believe that the Second Amendment reads "It is the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms" That is not what the 2nd amendment says. According to Websters Unabridged Dictionary, the Second Amendment States "To establish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The key phrase is "well regulated militia". Anyone who has read the entire Constitution along with the works of Madison and Jefferson knows that the founding fathers having lived with the excesses of the British Army wanted nothing to do with a large standing army. They chose rather to favor a small standing army supported by a citizen militia which was controlled by the individual states but which could be called up by the Federal government in case of disaster, national emergency, invasion or war (Article 1 Section 8:15, 8:16 Article 2 2:1). The phrase well regulated militia is defined as a trained military force comprised of citizens not professional soldiers between the ages of 18 and originally 45 but now 35.
The phrase "for the security of a free state" could by default include law enforcement.
Therefore by definition and as ACTUALLY written in the Constitution only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms in this country.
I have owned a shotgun for hunting my entire adult life and although I know it is not provided for in the Constitution I believe that this would be (actual hunting guns not pistols or semi automatics and the like) and could be the only exception to the rule.
Anyone who does not understand what the 2nd amendment says and still believes that everyone should own one is dreaming and does not understand human nature. Maybe like a neighbor of mine (a former lifetime NRA member) whose son was shot by a classmate won't really understand until someone close to them is shot by some moron with a concealed weapon for no reason.
Lastly I do not understand what the argument is over gays. Anyone who has read the 14th amendment knows that they have "equal justice under law" and the same rights as any other American. Even if you think this country is based on the Bible the answer is still the same.
My next point has to do with recent events. The NRA and its allies would have you believe that the Second Amendment reads "It is the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms" That is not what the 2nd amendment says. According to Websters Unabridged Dictionary, the Second Amendment States "To establish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The key phrase is "well regulated militia". Anyone who has read the entire Constitution along with the works of Madison and Jefferson knows that the founding fathers having lived with the excesses of the British Army wanted nothing to do with a large standing army. They chose rather to favor a small standing army supported by a citizen militia which was controlled by the individual states but which could be called up by the Federal government in case of disaster, national emergency, invasion or war (Article 1 Section 8:15, 8:16 Article 2 2:1). The phrase well regulated militia is defined as a trained military force comprised of citizens not professional soldiers between the ages of 18 and originally 45 but now 35.
The phrase "for the security of a free state" could by default include law enforcement.
Therefore by definition and as ACTUALLY written in the Constitution only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms in this country.
Wolfman24
100% wrong. Not only wrong, but far far beyond wrong.
"The great object is, that every man be armed" - Patrick Henry
Since you mentioned Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
Oh yea, that sumbitch also said this: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Only a few fools and Brady Group supporters could ever actually believe that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon membership in a well organized militia. The founding fathers, history, constitutional scholars, and everyone who knows anything about American history have all debunked that little fairy tale very long ago.
mod cut
If you seriously want to debate this topic, you should probably at least have a basic understanding of American history and Constitutional law before you continue making yourself look like a fool.
ON a side note, the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, yet for some odd reason you seem to believe it does.
Last edited by golfgal; 07-23-2012 at 03:41 PM..
Reason: personal attack
If you want to do something about taxes and the government here are two radical (?) ideas.
Only elect those people who sign contracts agreeing to work for their employers (us) and work to make the government more efficient by looking for and eliminating waste in government like the Defense Department (personal knowledge and experience) and establish a system through laws or even a Constitutional amendment whereby requests for funding must have proven value. This may result in higher taxes but at least the money will go where its needed and not into some fat cats pocket. This idea about funding is neither radical nor new. The first government to suggest such a thing that I am aware of is the Eisenhower. Carter and Clinton did the same thing.
My next point has to do with recent events. The NRA and its allies would have you believe that the Second Amendment reads "It is the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms" That is not what the 2nd amendment says. According to Websters Unabridged Dictionary, the Second Amendment States "To establish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The key phrase is "well regulated militia". Anyone who has read the entire Constitution along with the works of Madison and Jefferson knows that the founding fathers having lived with the excesses of the British Army wanted nothing to do with a large standing army. They chose rather to favor a small standing army supported by a citizen militia which was controlled by the individual states but which could be called up by the Federal government in case of disaster, national emergency, invasion or war (Article 1 Section 8:15, 8:16 Article 2 2:1). The phrase well regulated militia is defined as a trained military force comprised of citizens not professional soldiers between the ages of 18 and originally 45 but now 35.
The phrase "for the security of a free state" could by default include law enforcement.
Therefore by definition and as ACTUALLY written in the Constitution only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms in this country.
I have owned a shotgun for hunting my entire adult life and although I know it is not provided for in the Constitution I believe that this would be (actual hunting guns not pistols or semi automatics and the like) and could be the only exception to the rule.
Anyone who does not understand what the 2nd amendment says and still believes that everyone should own one is dreaming and does not understand human nature. Maybe like a neighbor of mine (a former lifetime NRA member) whose son was shot by a classmate won't really understand until someone close to them is shot by some moron with a concealed weapon for no reason.
Lastly I do not understand what the argument is over gays. Anyone who has read the 14th amendment knows that they have "equal justice under law" and the same rights as any other American. Even if you think this country is based on the Bible the answer is still the same.
Thanks
Wolfman24
You hit on one point that I wish there was more reporting on, the fact that the Iraq war, which had NO justification, has cost TRILLIONS of our tax money; but I have not read about one Republican complaining about this! Talk about government waste. Americans cared about bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, which Obama did with a commando raid. How about we make Bush and his rich pals and the rest of the GOP pay us back for this boondoggle?
Since you made the following comment below I have done some research and I stand by what I said (big surprise)
"Only a few fools and Brady Group supporters could ever actually believe that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon membership in a well organized militia. The founding fathers, history, constitutional scholars, and everyone who knows anything about American history have all debunked that little fairy tale very long ago.
Currently there are a number of Constitutional academics and legal authorities who believe that when looking at the 2nd Amendment AS WRITTEN from a collective rights perspective come to one conclusion; The one I pointed out. Private citizens do not have the right to bear arms except under specific circumstances. Yes I know what the supreme court said but a previous court also said segregation was legal. It just a matter of who sits in those chairs and what their politics are.
Here is a short list of collective rights advocates:
Dr. Saul Cornell - Constitutional Historian Ohio State University
Dr. W. Stone - Professor Emeritus
David Williams - Constitutional Lawyer Yale University
Daniel Polsby - Professor of Constitutional Law Northwest University
Dean of the Princeton Law School
If you want to go back alittle
Justice Thurgood Marshall - Supreme Court Justice
Chief Justice Warren Berger - Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
Chief Justice Marshall - Chief Justice during the Jefferson Administration
There are 26 more constitutional lawyers from the Fordham and Yale Law School but unfortunately the article I read did not give their names.
So not everyone agrees with you and all of the people who don't have pretty impressive resumes. And like I said this is a short list.
You claim that I don't know much about American History. I beg to differ
Once the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified between 1787 and 1789 and up until the mid 1870's the 2nd Amendment's meaning was clearly understood by the citizenry and the states as was the intent of the Constitution embodied in Article 1 Section 8 clauses 15 and 16 as well as Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1 that this country would have a small core of military supported by a "well regulated militia". If you bother to research your American History you will find that from 1790 until the beginning of the Civil War the Federal Government kept to this intent by maintaining a small federal armed services supported by a much larger force completely comprised of state militia. (Example: in 1859 the total number of soldiers and sailors in the United States Armed Forces was 17,000 in a nation of over 40 million.) Of course the Civil War temporarily changed all that (Note almost 40% of the Union Forces who fought in the Civil War were volunteer militia). Once the Civil War ended the nation returned to not as small military force but was still supported at least in the North by militia. This all changed again starting around 1900 when the military absorbed most of the militia's and reorganized them into regular army and the forerunners of the National Guard.
Madison wrote several versions of the 2nd Amendment trying to include phrases dealing with the protection of property but the Continental Congress only wanted it to strenghten their intent and Madison's for that matter of the articles and sections of the Constitution that I have mentioned which is why it is called the 2nd AMENDMENT. Contrary to your statement and as a careful review of American Colonial History would show, the Founding Fathers DID what the 2nd Amendment to read just as it does otherwise why did they allow it in there?
The foundling USA had just fought a horrible and costly (in more senses than one) revolution where the power of the British Army ran wild over the land. Contrary to British law, soldiers quartered themselves in civilian homes and held trials (drum trials) of anyone they even suspected of opposing them or the Crown. They confiscated goods and killed civilians who they THOUGHT were supporting the Rebels without due process or a trial as required by English Law.
The Founding Fathers were sick of it. A small band of them began thinking of another alternative. This group contrary to your beliefs was led in the early days by Thomas Jefferson as can be seen by the letters he wrote home to his wife while he was in Philadelphia. James Madison and John Adams were also in this group along with several others whose names you would probably not recognize. By around the end of the revolution, this group which was now a majority in the Continental Congress had agreed that the United States Armed Forces would be as I described above. Their model was the way the military worked and works in Switzerland.
When Madison and his associates started writing the Constitution (Jefferson was in Paris as an ambassador) he also wrote home and his intentions on the wording and meaning of the 2nd Amendment are very clear.
Once the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified the public (those that could read) took the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in stride. They had suffered the brunt of the British Military Machine and wanted no part of it in the new country. That is why the 2nd Amendment would not be challenged for the next 50 years. In 1839 the Supreme Court heard its first case on this issue. It was a question of Individual vs Collective Rights. The Supreme Court saw for collective rights.
As far as I know between 1789 and the 1880's the courts almost Unanimously said the 2nd Amendment means what it says. to say that the founding fathers did not mean what they said when they ratified the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment) is foolish. Do you think they wanted something else and signed the document cause?
Also you have a quote from Thomas Jefferson in your response. I hate to inform you but this quote is inaccurate. How do I know, I have copies of the letter it came from. During Jefferson's first term a gentlemen from Virginia wrote an open letter to the Jefferson criticizing him on a number of points. Personal protection was one of them. There were 7 letters in all between the two men and by the end the tone of the letters had changed from adversarial to cordial. I will admit that when you read the letters which were written in quill, the error that is commonly made is easily understandable.
The correct sentence is " No free man shall ever be debarred of arms ON his own lands." Jefferson believed that people on the frontier and on farms had the right to defend themselves for obvious reasons. When is the last time you were attacked by Indians? He believed in what the 2nd Amendment said but was called out by the man in Virginia on it and this was his reply.
According to the Yale law review and others the quote about bearing arms and governmental tyranny is not found in any of Jefferson's writings. However there is a quote that has been credited to him which in part states that the citizenry must be prepared to suppress insurrections and the tyranny of governments. It says nothing about individual rights to bear arms and is based on Article 1 Section 8 clause 15 of the Constitution.
OK so lets get down to modern times. Granted because of the history of our country over the last 100 or so years, the likelihood of us returning to a "well regulated militia" is remote at best. BUT when the 2nd Amendment was written it was clearly the intent of the founding fathers and it author that the collective view of this amendment was the only one being considered. The history of the United States from 1789 until the 1880's bears this out. IT WAS NEVER meant to permit every person to own a gun. Using rationale judgement it is illogical to assume that if everyone was armed the world would be a safer place. Recent history and common sense clearly show that this is not the case. The world would live in fear because ordinary people would be afraid to open up their mouths for fear that the person next to them is 'carrying". People run on emotion and that is the biggest flaw in the individualist argument.
Here's what I believe in today's society. There are people out there that may need to have a gun. Those that live in remote areas for food and protection. Those that live in areas where there are few if any law enforcement (in Montana there is a county the size of Conn. with only 4 county police.) However I would prefer that those wishing to have a gun in those circumstances be given testing and some law enforcement training and then made volunteer or auxilary deputies. I also believe that hunters (those that keep and bear arms solely for the purpose of hunting) should be allowed to own guns but the guns that they should be allowed to use should clearly be intended for hunting. Semi automatic uzis and the like don't count. But the common citizen in an urban or suburban setting has no real need. There are alternatives. Please don't quote me all the statistics the NRA uses to defend their urban gorilla stand. Most of the time they are inflated and many times they include innocent people who have been blown away by some non criminal who was "packing"
Keep in mind that killing someone unless they have physically assaulted you (most of the time) or they are physically putting your life at risk is murder. Even if you believe you have been clearly threatened with bodily harm you will still go to jail until the jury has worked it out and I can tell you what my nephew tells me (a Dallas Cop). About half the time those who THOUGHT they were threatened go to jail on at least a reckless use of a firearms charge if not worse and that charge stays with you FOREVER. Trying getting your life back together as an ex-con. A licence to carry does not equal a license to kill.
If your argument is too few police, then support measures to increase the number of police. If your argument is not enough laws protecting the innocent (other than gun laws), then vote out those who oppose those laws. Believing that there are those out there that mean you harm is paranoia. Most people good or bad don't know you or me and don't care.
If you are going to rebute someone please be accurate and provide proof of what you say. Otherwise your words are mere ripples in the wind.
Then there is the religious side. The commandment reads "thou shalt not kill". It does not say thou shalt not kill except in these circumstances. The commandment is pretty clear and makes no exceptions. God gave us that commandment and it is not for us to decide whether He will understand or not, it HIS.
Thanks
Tim Hauck (lifelong Constitutional advocate and historian)
Tim,
All your histroical dialogue is interesting and I am sure could be debated by others who differ from you.
In the end who cares? What does it matter today? I may want a gun and you don't. So what? Why do you care?
You seem to feel that you are judge and jury as to how others should live their lives.
This a pompous position but not uncommon among "progressive liberals" though.
When the bad guy inserts himself into your life, you would not really debate your future challenges, you would just want the ability to KILL the bad guy.
The sadness afterwards comes from the fact the the bad guy mucked up your life through his selfish actions; not the other way around.
Start trusting the majority of your fellow countrymen more.
Let people have the tools to "depopulate the bad guys" and society will be fine.
You have no idea who or what I am and most people who know me would hardly call me a "progressive Liberal" I do not understand your reference to Judge and Jury. I have made no such comment other than to explain the facts of this case. Rather it is the unquestioning gun supporters who are the judge and jury on two separate issues. It is a standard tactic of religious and political conservatives (which includes most supporters of gun rights) that whenever someone disagrees with their political and/or religious opinions they label them as some kind of flaming liberal, unAmerican or socialist or to refer to them as pompous egocentric and the like, without having a clue as to who they really are or might be. This is not my opinion but based on living many years in the bible belt where gun mania has gone overboard. The other point is that those that believe that "packing" is ok are in fact making themselves judge and jury over their intended victims as history has repeatedly shown.
Also I strongly disagree with your comment about the majority of the people in this country wanting to allow concealed weapons or handguns. Maybe that's what Fox and the NRA want you to believe but national poll after national poll shows otherwise. The traditional comeback to this statement is that if the majority did not want it why do we have it. Simple. If you would bother to look it up in most states where the gun question has come up for a vote, the number of votes cast for or against those initiatives was light compared to voting for a political candidate as it usually is for any referendum or proposal. This is another tactic used to make the gun lobby as well as political and religious conservatives feel better by claiming they are in the majority when in mot cases they are not.
Last as I said before under the laws of this country killing someone except in special circumstances is murder and murderers go to jail. So using your analogy the "bad guy" will end up messing up your life in ways you can't even imagine. Killing is also a mortal sin even if it is legal.
You have the right as an American to call me whatever you want so long as it is not slander or libel. But if you are a person of faith this right is more limited.
Tim (Wolfman)
I only used your words to describe yourself from your opening manifesto.
I never stated majority of Americans desire CCW, therefore you cannot disagree with me on said topic.
It really is of little use to me what majority of people want. We live in a Republic, not a pure Democracy. Contrary to popular perception, majority rule is not the case here.
I don't disagree that there is a judge/jury element to protecting oneself or one's family. I am fine with that. As long as I and/or my familiy are still alive in the end at the end of the episode, things are generally ok. If a bad guy is dead and now cannot harm others later - that is a bonus.
Please show me exactly where I am being POMPOUS or acting as judge and jury as to how others should live there lives.
My last post to Mr. Pancake was in response to similar comments like the ones you have made above. The majority of the post contains factual information from a multiple of sources. Paragraphs 1 through 13.
Paragraph 14 is a combination of a summary of the above paragraphs and a personal opinion based on polls from the NCIC, National Research Institute and one done by the NCC. I do make a comment in this paragraph which is as stated only common sense.
Paragraph 15 is my personal opinion which I will get to later.
Paragraph 16 is a reminder of what the laws in this country are which I did not write say. I stated them because most of the gun people I have talked with think that if they shoot someone nothing will happen to them.
The last paragraph talks about religious obligations which I did create God did.
If this pompous to express an opinion based on factual information then I fear we are all in trouble.
So far you have said only one thing that I agree with but probably not for the same reason. We do not and have not lived in a democracy for most of our existence and although for the first 150 years when it came to voting majority did rule, this has not been the case recently. Although I strongly support the constitution I think the Electoral College was a dinosaur two days after it became law.
You have now made two comments which I find incredibly pompous and contradictory
First you say "Start trusting the majority of your fellow countrymen more.
Let people have the tools to "depopulate the bad guys" and society will be fine."
And then you say It really is of little use to me what majority of people want.
Who decides who the bad guys are? You, the NRA, Conservatives and Evangelicals. If that were the case a lot of us are in for it. From what I understand the legal system flawed as it may be decides. So what then "bad guys" must wear a big C on thier backs so they can be blown away by people who believe they have that right. That is not society that is mob justice.
Your next comment about your opinion of majority rule is most upsetting. First I mus "trust the majority of my fellow countrymen more" but you don't have to because you don't care what they want? HUH??
If that is not pompous and hypocritical I don't know what is.
Even using your analogy of a Republic, this is still a society of laws and people and whether you like it or not you live here and are obliged by law to comply with the law. Yez!!!
Lastly I mentioned the polls because of your comment about trusting the majority of Americans and giving them the tools. Sorry but you are wrong here too. One of those tools according to the NRA is the concealed weapon and most Americans oppose people having them especially in place where people congregate. If you want I can provide you with the numbers from more than one source.
In EVERY conversation I have ever had with "gun"" people they always use the same tactics. Claim the founding fathers did not mean what they wrote (MR Pancake). State that no one of any importance supports what they wrote (mr Pancake). Then they make asinine comments about peope they don't even know (you and pancake) The problem is they misrepresent the facts, don't check the information they are trying to pass off as fact and don't know the person they are talking. In some ways I feel when they make these personal attacks and misrepresentations they are trying to make them selves feel better or something by denagrading the person they are talking to and trying to make them look inept or stupid.
The problem with this is people know who they are and most of them can read. Some like myself actually know what we are talking about. (I have actually put people in prison who thought they had done nothing wrong escape to violate the law and put hundreds of others at risk. How many have you put away!)
Claudus said "Know they enemy"
I suggest this is good advise when having a debate. Don't assume who they are based on some standard label the NRA has given them and when you make a statement make darn sure its right based on facts not on what you would like it to be.
I think this conversation is ended. no more personal attacks oK?
You are reeaally hung up on this anti-gun thing aren't you?
I never mentioned being a pro-gunner/anti-gunner or pro NRA/anti NRA. I seldom listen to NRA message and do not know what the organization is up to lately. You sure do infer a lot.
I think people can be trusted to make good decisions for themsleves and their family. If, in the process of making good decisions, (i.e. protecting themselves), a bad guy is removed from society, that is a good thing. That's all I am sayin.
Since you seem concerned about who decides what a bad guy is, let me help as it really is not that difficult:
A bad guy is the guy trying to rape your wife or daughter,
A bad guy is the guy coming at you with a tire iron/baseball bat,
A bad guy is the guy pretending to be a salesman who wants to steal your stuff when he gets in the house,
A bad guy is the guy, high on meth and stealing your stuff, who decides to kill you when you catch him.
These are just a few examples - hope this helps. It actually is pretty easy to tell a bad guy from a good guy.
Anyway - I am done with you, bye bye.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
