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

But nuthin. Thats where it has to go, legally.

Any reincorporation could modify, legally, where the land goes...

Assuming those who voted for reincorporation wanted the land to go somewhere that wasn't Maryland...

It'd still drive Reps nuts cause it would mean another voting Dem. Won't happen. Cause the DC metro area is full of people who "aren't real Americans."

Well, we could have another constitutional amendment that says that DC is allowed to vote on which State they'd like to join, between Virgina or Maryland (once, obviously; no changing their minds afterward).

I think Maryland would through the biggest fit since New York and New Jersey fought over Liberty Island.

I wouldn't mind that. Once I need to get a permanent address, I'm seriously thinking of bolting to a Maryland place instead. I couldn't stand not having my vote count.

It counts for the president. Just not for Congress.

Holy shit, Washington is a thoroughly blue voting populace.

Hm.

Yeah, I think my preferred solution is a law/constitutional amendment (whatever is necessary) that lets them vote on which of the two States they'd like to join, while the US Government keeps the stuff it actually owns as Federal property (the Capitol Building, the White House, the monuments, etc.).

That's why nothings been done about it since theres been enough republicans to block anything in congress.

Well, I'm against DC Statehood, because I don't think a single city—regardless of population—should be equal to an entire State. Is DC alone more populous than Wyoming? Yes. I don't think it's relevant, though. I'd rather they just went to one of the two States that surround them, get their representation there, and be done with it.

As for the gun laws, I already made my position there clear, so...

Yea, they deffinatlly should not be a state.

If dinky little Rhode Island can be a state, I see no reason why DC can't. It has almost as many people.

Rhode Island is one of the original colonies. Such is why, probably. It might have been absorbed by one of the larger States, otherwise.

Then again, Rhode Island is about 18 times the size of Washington DC...

But only has something like twice as many people.

For the purposes of drawing State lines, I consider land area to be more important than population. States, after all, are just administrative districts. Besides that, it's more helpful if we let them vote and they go into Virgina and make it Democrat...

@USAF

That's why the rural states like Wyoming (with more cows than people) have way disproportionate say in national policy.

By disproportionate, you mean "they don't let California, New York, Texas, and Florida run the country for them," right?

That's kind of the point. Just because some of the States have all the people doesn't mean they just get to boss everyone else around. And I sure as fuck wouldn't want California in charge for real, rather than the de facto rule they currently enjoy, because California really does tend to fall into the annoying "student liberal" stereotype that everybody thinks represents all liberals and progressives...

Meh, IMHO it's actually New England (and some bits of New York) that's the real liberal area of the US. CA is kind of MPD and a weird conglomerate of liberal and conservative.

Well, true. Then again, New York abolished the death penalty, while California still has it.

Hm...

It beats having to bend over backwards to subsidize ways of life that died out decades ago. The rural states owe the fact that they exist at all to subsidies from the federal government, and then they go and forbid us for actually investing anything in the urban areas.

You know, cause investing in mass transit is socialism, but shipping water all over Arizona and the huge subsidies that went into the creation of Wyoming, those are just hunky-dory.

edited 18th Nov '11 9:02:38 PM by Clevomon

And the opposite—nothing but disdain for rural areas while heavy investment goes into urban and suburban areas all the time—would be just as bad.

Seriously, the system works just fine, in the sense that the States should be balanced. It's the fact that the politicians are bought and paid for that's the problem, not the actual set up as far as representation numbers and such.

It's rediculous we don;t have better mass transit. We've helped design the bullet trains in japan and china, but the closest we have is the accella that goes 120 mph for a tiny streach of track in conneticut. Or rhode island,I forget.

@USAF

I would have no problem with them getting massive funding if they were just willing to let us get done what we need to as well. There are some great people in those areas, don't get me wrong, but I have to defend Amtrak's simple existence to people from the rural states so often that I could scream. "Well, we don't ask the federal government for anything." Yes you do! What the heck do you think lets you own land so cheaply there? And these people get as good as veto power over anything to do with the District, which they could care less about cause, well, they're not from there. It makes me want to yank my hair out.

edited 18th Nov '11 9:13:07 PM by Clevomon

Better public transit would benefit the rural states anyway. All of my friends who live in rural areas hate the fact that they have to spend several appendages and a gonad on gas just to get around everywhere. Even limited transit in those areas would help them out.

Thread Hop:

Actually, Derrick Bird's shotgun rampage happened in the LAKE District not the PEAK District where a lot of people own legal firearms.