Airman_Doors_USAF:
Excellent. So what I propose is the following:
DC gets the right to vote for a Representative of their choice. But first they have to fill out the DC ID-10-T form to exercise that right, take a test to demonstrate their knowledge of all things related to the government, pay $250 or so to cover bureaucratic costs, and then wait 6-8 weeks to get their voting rights card. Failure to do so will cause a refusal at the polls, and loss of the card will require another 6-8 weeks to get it replaced with fees. Additionally, the office is staffed by indifferent government workers who have no interest in helping you, and some of the requirements are by appointment only.
If being bureaucratically buttfucked is something that you’re fine with, you should have no objection. We need a well-educated electorate, so surely you’re on board with that, right?
Of course, the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right, whereas DC representation is not. Curses, foiled again!
Christ, we get it already. You’d rather have people in DC be able to carry guns and be excluded from having a vote in Congress. Your point has been made very clear, that being armed is preferable to the democratic principle of equal representation; I don’t think we need to beat this dead horse any more.
Then stop beating it. I’m responding to madmax28 and his desk-pounding.
madmonk28:
Uh, what?
In one case (voting rights for DC) you argue that people who don’t like the way things are set up in DC should leave. In another case (guns for Emily) you seem to thing that she is being treated unfairly and that this should be changed. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment.
My point is that to be logically consistent, you should advise Emily to just leave DC because for some reason, the people of DC are not allowed to want to change a system that they feel is unfair when it comes to voting rights, so why should they be allowed to change the administrative process to get a gun? According to you the people of DC have only one option when faced with a problem, to leave the city.
Also, since no court has ruled that the process by which DC awards gun permits is unconstitutional, you can’t really argue that Emily’s constitutional rights are being violated.
DC doesn’t award permits. I don’t care one way or the other whether someone can carry a concealed weapon (which is what a permit is for) in DC, but simple ownership is a fundamental Constitutional right, backed by two Supreme Court rulings, that DC is trying to prevent with their scheme.
Ravenman:
Christ, we get it already. You’d rather have people in DC be able to carry guns and be excluded from having a vote in Congress. Your point has been made very clear, that being armed is preferable to the democratic principle of equal representation; I don’t think we need to beat this dead horse any more.
He isnt bringing it up madmonk is and apparently madmonk isnt getting it.