As Seen From DC: Concealed Guns Over State Lines & Right of Home-Rule

Washington D.C is population wise larger than Wyoming.

In any case, this would give 2 Democratic Senators. Which, given how nasty Republicans are, is a good thing.

@USAF

Other cities can lean on their states. The District needs to negotiate with two, and sometimes can't even rely on them for help if the federal govt decides to screw with them. The District's different from other cities.

NYC is, population wise, 20 times larger than DC. Why not give them senators? Or LA? Or Dallas? Or San Fransisco?

Seriously, where is the line drawn to say "This city deserves senators(and recognition as it's own state), but others don't?"

Whether or not it will add two Democratic Senators is besides the point. Hell, that'd be great. I still don't think DC should be a State/have its own special representation, so I don't care about that.

DC is only different in that regard because you refuse to join one of the two States around you. So, too bad.

Like I said, other cities can rely on their states to champion their interests. Mc Donnell takes every chance he can get to screw the District over, and Maryland just doesn't want to take on anymore responsibility than they can get benefit from bringing trade to Silver Spring, Wheaton, and Baltimore, whenever possible. The District has never had the backing other cities have and never will.

So what? Once again, eventually we'll get a constitutional amendment that will let the people of DC vote on what State they want to be a part of. Until then, I oppose DC on the grounds that cities are not and cannot be States. "But it's different!" is a nonsensical argument, because it's not. You simply refuse to try and fix it because it better suits your political interests to become a "State."

And that's because the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they wanted a place that had no ties to any state authority. That way, the capital was not beholden to any state.

220 years ago that was decided. And they decided way back then that they wanted their capital city to have no representation at all. And it wasn't until about 50 years ago that it changed to the present conditions...

It's not like people are barred from moving to a different location within the United States...

I don't see what the big deal with D.C. getting Senators would be. The United States Senate is designed to be unfair.

Oh, and the problem with any other city becoming their own state is that first they'd have to secede from the state they're in, which would likely meet with considerable resistance from the rest of the state.

edited 19th Nov '11 11:33:47 PM by RavenWilder

I dunno about that. If LA seceded from California, people from the north of the state wouldn't miss em'....

Point. I've heard of group that wanted to seced from New York because of the power New York City had over everything. Long island and upstate specifically. And a few That New York city wanted to just leave the country, but that was right before the civil war.

We wouldn't miss Nor Cal either, and they would just have Frisco calling all the shots.

The politics of LA dominate So Cal, and the politics of San Fran dominate Nor Cal. That's why the north is more liberal than the south on average. Personally, I hate both cities with a passion.

California is one of the states I really think should have been more then one. Like texas. There both fricking huge with more population then almost any other two states combined. There should be a north and south california. Texas would be harder, but they actually were kinda supposed to be split in three or four states when they joined.

Here's a solution I can live with: You can downsize the military a whole lot, provided that the nation enacts an open-carry provision.

There, we no longer need a large standing army. The budget is happy and the conservatives get their guns. What could possibly go wrong?

(I'm not sure if I'm entirely joking, either.)

^ Only if that means you can open carry belt fed machine guns. (Or slap on Gatling guns to trucks.)

Don't pull this everyone has bolt actions or pistols shit. It's either allow everything in that scheme or you start issuing everyone an M-16/M-14/M-249/M-60/M-240/M-4.

Well, if they went down that road, they'd have to expand the second amendment to include language as to what properly constitutes a militia. I'd be fine with some rule that says "you can have the heavy-duty stuff if you a member in good-standing with a local militia" while everyone else is given the right to own the usual stuff.

So if I join the Hawaiian 89th Volunteer Regiment, I can show my membership card and get myself a bona-fide military-grade firearm. Makes sense?

Not sure how that would work for DC folks. I'd expect the army to maintain their presence there, precluding the need for a volunteer force in that area.

Still a gigantic risk of being shot by crazy people.

Texas was not intended to be three or four states when it joined. It was simply given the power to split itself up without having to ask Congress for permission to do so. I don't know why, but I assume that it was important at the time. (It also officially sold a good amount of its territory to the federal government in order to cure the massive debt problem.) Also, Californians were pretty much given permission to draw their own borders, which is why that state is so large.

Anyway, either we need to nationalize gun laws or the city of DC (And it is a special case, as it belongs to no state and has no representation) needs to have its gun ban respected by visitors and enforceable by its police. It's only fair; you're going to a different state/city, you have to play by their rules. If they voted for a gun ban, well, too bad for the visitors, you're a guest in someone else's house. Their city government also needs to be able to run the city without having to as Congress for permission. That's just a fucking waste of everyone's time.

@Ace of Spades

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took away our gun ban. We don't even have that anymore. Just tighter general restrictions.