Congress yet again goes against the will of the residents of DC

[jkjsooner]

The Republicans sure like to talk a lot about liberty and local rights but yet again they can't allow residents of DC the right to democratically make their own decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...9d7_story.html


I know that Congress does have this authority but just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. This still goes against everything you hear from Republicans.

The majority of DC needs to be removed from Congress's direct authority. The district should consist of the federal buildings and land only. The intent was not to let Congress override the will of 600,000 residents. I'm not in favor of statehood for DC. (If they want representation they they can join either Maryland or Virginia. Not enough land or population to warrant a 51st state.) I am in favor of allowing them the autonomy and self rule that everyone else enjoys.

[jkjsooner]

One last point, despite the majority of Americans favoring legalization, this makes it perfectly clear that Congress is a long ways from removing marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug.

Just letting the DC residents to have their own autonomy would have been such an easy thing to do. There's no political risk in inaction here yet Congress simply couldn't help themselves.

For federal legalization you're talking about Congress having to take real political risk. They are clearly a long way from doing that.

[SoonerProphet]

Saw somewhere the chief sponsor of this is on the dole to big pharma. Money counts, votes apparently do not.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am in favor of moving the 600K residents out of the city. As the District for the FEDGOV, the FEDGOV should rule, not the residents. If you CHOOSE to live there, then there are restrictions you must live with. You have the freedom to live anywhere, you may not have the freedom to do as you please... It would be great if Congress passes a must carry or must own rule in D.C., but that won't happen...

[jkjsooner]

I am in favor of moving the 600K residents out of the city. As the District for the FEDGOV, the FEDGOV should rule, not the residents. If you CHOOSE to live there, then there are restrictions you must live with. You have the freedom to live anywhere, you may not have the freedom to do as you please... It would be great if Congress passes a must carry or must own rule in D.C., but that won't happen...

Are you talking about force moving the residents out of the district? You're freakin' nuts. What would you do with the land, houses, etc? How would you compensate the land owners? Ever driven in the area? Move all of those people out to the burbs and you'll never get anywhere on the beltway. The district is so much more than the federal buildings and land.

When the district was created almost nobody live there. Feds controlling the district made sense when the district was mostly govt buildings and land with a relatively small number of residents who were mostly govt employees. Now it's a city of 600,000 people.

In either case, just because Congress has the right to force policies on the district doesn't mean they always should do so. Congressmen from Alabama, Mississippi, Vermont, or wherever should exercise restraint when dealing with the internal affairs of the city. In this case, the residents' opinion on this matter was clear and there was no compelling reason for Congress to override the residents' vote. This isn't a case where the mayor was smoking crack with whores or the city council was corrupt...

If you honestly believe in the rights of local people to govern themselves then you would exercise great restraint before butting into city affairs. As usual politicians talk a big talk about individual rights, local rights, etc. but when it comes down to it they're all hypocrites.

[jkjsooner]

It would be great if Congress passes a must carry or must own rule in D.C., but that won't happen...

As a person who favors individual freedom, this last sentence really irritates me to no end.

As a father of an autistic child (a five year old who can't even comprehend what a gun is), this would be a truly dangerous proposition. If I still lived in DC you would probably require me to go get some type of waiver... Such complete B.S.

[Turd_Ferguson]

As a person who favors individual freedom, this last sentence really irritates me to no end.

As a father of an autistic child (a five year old who can't even comprehend what a gun is), this would be a truly dangerous proposition. If I still lived in DC you would probably require me to go get some type of waiver... Such complete B.S.

This makes no ****ing sense whatsoever...

[jkjsooner]

This makes no ****ing sense whatsoever...

Explain.

Individual freedom - Why the hell would the government mandate that I carry a weapon. Shouldn't I have the freedom to choose not to carry a weapon?

Safety issues - Having guns around children who don't have the capacity to understand what a gun is is a recipe for disaster. I would hope that would be obvious to you.


I bring up my child just as an example. I'd guess a decent percentage of people are in situations where having a gun in the house is just as bad of an idea as in mine. Maybe they're suicidal. Maybe they have anger issues and don't trust that they wouldn't pick up a gun and pull the trigger in a moment when they're not thinking clearly. Maybe they just know that they're not responsible enough to carry/possess a gun.

The last thing anyone should want is to force gun ownership on someone who does not want to own a gun.

[OU68]

I sympathize with your concern about the child. Don't buy bullets, put the gun in a small safe. Problem solved.

[TAFBSooner]

I sympathize with your concern about the child. Don't buy bullets, put the gun in a small safe. Problem solved.

Are you serious? Are there people on here who believe the government should REQUIRE gun ownership? I see that THA is calling for that; your response isn't quite so explicit.

1 - Who all supports a "must own" law?

2 - I had not heard of that before this afternoon*, but it seems pretty self-explanatory. When did this idea start?

3 - jkj already made a good case against such a law. What is the case in favor of it?

I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. But a requirement to bear arms is meshuggah.

* OK, I've heard there's a small town in Georgia or thereabouts that passed such a law. I had no idea it was a movement.

[yermom]

yep, we need less government, unless the Bible or something

[OU68]

Are you serious? Are there people on here who believe the government should REQUIRE gun ownership? I see that THA is calling for that; your response isn't quite so explicit.

1 - Who all supports a "must own" law?

2 - I had not heard of that before this afternoon*, but it seems pretty self-explanatory. When did this idea start?

3 - jkj already made a good case against such a law. What is the case in favor of it?

I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. But a requirement to bear arms is meshuggah.

* OK, I've heard there's a small town in Georgia or thereabouts that passed such a law. I had no idea it was a movement.

The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to carry, but I have to jump through hoops to do it legally. No, I'm not in favor of must anything - just pointing out that there are pretty simple solutions to things you might not agree with.

[olevetonahill]

Are you serious? Are there people on here who believe the government should REQUIRE gun ownership? I see that THA is calling for that; your response isn't quite so explicit.

1 - Who all supports a "must own" law?

2 - I had not heard of that before this afternoon*, but it seems pretty self-explanatory. When did this idea start?

3 - jkj already made a good case against such a law. What is the case in favor of it?

I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. But a requirement to bear arms is meshuggah.

* OK, I've heard there's a small town in Georgia or thereabouts that passed such a law. I had no idea it was a movement.

Early 80s 81 I believe
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Right after they Passed it I flew in and donated 6 guns and 800 dollars for training.
The Police Chief and Mayor treated me like royalty. also explained there were Loopholes you could drive a truck thru for those who dint want to own a weapon.
This was passed in response to Morton Grove Illinois Baining the ownership and possession in their city limits

Funny thing tho. in 2 years after both ordinances were passed Crime had skyrocketed in Morton Grove and dropped to zilch in Kennesaw.