Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,817 Posts
But of course they can't do it without the permission of the legislature. And how likely are they to get that?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,330 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
But of course they can't do it without the permission of the legislature. And how likely are they to get that?
Perhaps the left-winging supercities would be as glad to get rid of those pesky liberty-lovers in the rural environs as those wishing to leave would be to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mprp

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
I like the idea but it won't fly. Colorado is run by the left right now and they depend upon these poor souls for tax revenue to fund their ludicrous ideology. Someone has to pay, after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,299 Posts
Mega-blocks. Mega-highways. Mega-City One.

*ahem* sorry. I think it's a great idea. If the people of certain counties want to create a new state, what right does the state have to stop them? Do they belong to their overlords in Denver and Boulder? I say keep up the fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Arborigine

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
I don't know what processes are in place either under state constitutions or Congressional authority, but I do know
that allowing the creation of several new rural only states would severely unbalance an already unbalanced situation in The Senate where rural states are more heavily represented than heavily populated states.

Maybe if the "Splitters" were to get their way each of NYC's 5 boroughs could become a new state too--- and add 10
liberal senators to The Senate? The Bronx with a population of 1.3 million deserves equal representation to S. Dakota.
Each of the other boroughs would balance against places such as Montana and Idaho.

Sometimes things shouldn't be messed with. This breakaway business is one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keboostman

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,330 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I don't know what processes are in place either under state constitutions or Congressional authority, but I do know
that allowing the creation of several new rural only states would severely unbalance an already unbalanced situation in The Senate where rural states are more heavily represented than heavily populated states.

Maybe if the "Splitters" were to get their way each of NYC's 5 boroughs could become a new state too--- and add 10
liberal senators to The Senate? The Bronx with a population of 1.3 million deserves equal representation to S. Dakota.
Each of the other boroughs would balance against places such as Montana and Idaho.

Sometimes things shouldn't be messed with. This breakaway business is one of them.
That rural imbalance of which you speak is the reason for the existence of the House of Representatives.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
Never happen, unless the DNC thinks it will get 2 more Dem Senators out of it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
Great idea but doubt it will fly.That said,you try what you can,with this anti American regime and all of their merry little butt kissers,ugh.
The America i use to know,isn't anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
That rural imbalance of which you speak is the reason for the existence of the House of Representatives.
Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
I'm sick of it.Sick of all the telling me what to do and what not to do.I do believe what was suggested to me once.There are government people watching on here,so,i'm gonna try and be more careful,with what i say.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
The House exists specifically to represent population. The Senate was designed to prevent population centers from completely controlling legislation. We are not a democracy and we were never intended to be one. Majority rule has no place in a free society. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,118 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: mprp

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,330 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
My point exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Sounds great to me! I'm quite happy to hear that there are people on that side of the hill so sick to their guts with guv loopy and the dems that they'd split into another state! Add Western Colorado to the mix and we'd have 2 new states! I know it's a pipe dream, but at least I still can dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wmhawth

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,299 Posts
Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
And that's exactly how it should be. The majority says "we want to do this" via the House, and the minority says "no, that's going to hurt us" via the Senate. The alternative to this "imbalance" is to have New York and California running the entire country, and personally, one of the reasons I own firearms is fear of that scenario.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
And that's exactly how it should be. The majority says "we want to do this" via the House, and the minority says "no, that's going to hurt us" via the Senate. The alternative to this "imbalance" is to have New York and California running the entire country, and personally, one of the reasons I own firearms is fear of that scenario.
Well then, IMO you have picked the wrong reason to own guns. There are many good reasons for doing so, but not the one
you posted.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top