Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Voting Wrongs, Gun Rights

By Greg L | 26 April 2010 | National Politics | 28 Comments

Guest post by Sanford D. Horn

The Washington Post, the alleged newspaper of record for the nation’s capitol and its metropolitan area, over the past seven days ending with Saturday, April 24, 2010 ran six articles, editorials or columns each decrying the lack of voting rights yet to bestowed upon the residents of the District of Columbia.

All but one missed the point entirely and the one author who did get the point and mentioned the eight hundred pound elephant in the room that alluded all the others, while correct in his method of solution, is wrong in his thinking. Make no mistake, the Post is not the only newspaper guilty of being disingenuous, they simply provided so many examples of their nascent ignorance.

The issue in question, is, and has been for decades, the potential of granting the citizens of the District of Columbia with a voting member to the House of Representatives with the same powers and authority of the current 435 members. This session of Congress seemed the closest to making those voting rights a reality for the folks in DC, yet too many believed they were hamstrung by a rider to the legislation that would handcuff the DC government regarding gun control in the District itself.

Truth be told, the question of gun rights had been resolved via the Supreme Court’s hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller and by correctly ruling in favor of Heller granting the appropriate Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the District – a long overdue decision.

There was also a compromise proposal coming in part from the pseudo-RINO, former Congressman Tom Davis (VA-11th) that would be, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced by giving a House seat to DC and a temporary seat to Utah, which would no doubt be a GOP seat. However, as noted, it would only be temporary and the next census, this one, would redistribute the Utah seat to the state statistically due the next seat.

All of the negotiating, hand-wringing over depriving citizens their voting rights, and the notion of taxation without representation as appears on many DC license plates, is avuncular to a parlor game or sleight of hand.

The reality is the one issue not addressed by Post writers Tim Craig and Ann E. Marimow in “Gun law proposal complicates Hill vote,” or by Marimow and Ben Pershing in “District voting rights scuttled,” or in Robert McCartney’s editorial “Plenty of blame to go around on lack of D.C. vote,” or a Post editorial “D.C. voting rights? Not this deal,” or local opinions offered by DC Shadow Senator Michael Brown, the aforementioned Davis and DC City Councilman Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3).

Only in the April 24 column “What will it take to get a vote for the District,” did Colbert I. King deal with the issue head on – the Constitutionality of whether or not District citizens should have voting representation in the House. While I often enjoy Colbert’s columns and sometimes agree with him, this is not one of those times.

Colbert, does, aver correctly, that the power to grant DC congressional representation does fall into the hands of the Congress itself. However, what Congress can giveth, Congress may also taketh away. So, Colbert once again, takes the correct tack by suggesting an official constitutional amendment – this I agree with in practice, but not in theory.

If, and this is a big if, the District of Columbia is to ever attain congressional representation, it should be garnered via a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress to propose such an amendment and then three quarters of the several states would need to sign off on the amendment making it so.

How easy is that? Since the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were ratified on December 15, 1791, the Constitution has been amended a mere 17 times. That’s one amendment every 12.88 years, and really, since one amendment repealed another, that’s 15 constitutional changes in 219 years, or once every 14.6 years, for the stats junkies.

This is a serious enough issue to demand a constitutional amendment. That’s the practice side of the issue. The theory side of the issue is where I part company from Colbert. In no way do I support the granting of congressional representation to the District of Columbia.

The founding fathers did not intend for the seat of the government of the United States of America to be treated like a state. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; – …”

It is a district – the seat of the government, not a permanent residence. When the Capitol was erected upon the swamp on which it currently rests, members of the citizen legislature were expected to ride into town on their horses or carriages, serve their term or two, then return to their farms, businesses, law practices, etc. and resume life as private citizens. Their staffs, small as they were, were expected to do likewise.

It was neither expected nor predicted that the District of Columbia would grow to become a burgeoning metropolis of greater than 600,000 in the city and more than two million residents in the surrounding cities and counties in Maryland and Virginia.

However, that being said, no one forced the residents of DC to become such, thus making their demands of representation disingenuous. Again, according to the Constitution, only states are entitled to representation in the House and Senate.

Article I, Section 2 states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”

And just for good measure, Article I, Section 3 states that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”

Although the issue of Senate representation has not garnered as much attention or press as that of House representation, the statehood supporters would certainly have an interest in the addition of members in both houses. Shadow Senator Brown called for as much in his April 20 Local Opinion item:

“We want our full rights and we want them now…. It’s time to make us equal. It’s time to make us a state.” But Mr. Brown is misguided. His conclusion is demonstrative of a common ailment suffered by most members of the House and Senate – Constitutional forgetfulness.

This is not the partisan Republican talking here, knowing that DC would undoubtedly elect two Democrats to the Senate and one more to the House, but one who believes the seat of the government should not be made a state as it is distinct in its existence and use by the Federal government.

I should also point out the absurd recommendation made by McCartney in his April 22 column. He suggests dividing California into two states, giving each new state two senators or just amending the Constitution to grant the current Golden State an additional two senators to compensate for its population.

McCartney’s trip to fantasy land suggests that Southern California would presumably elect Republicans and Northern California would supposedly elect Democrats and that the two new Republicans would be a counterweight to the two Democrats the DC voters would send up the street to the Senate. At least McCartney knows this plan is loopy. “Far-fetched? Absolutely,” he asks and answers.

Back in the world of reality, there is a solution that would make the most sense and give DC residents the representation they should have as residents of an actual state – and under my plan, they would attain just that.

The land creating the District of Columbia was initially carved out of Maryland and Virginia in July 1790. In 1847, the land on the southern side of the Potomac reverted back to Virginia, eliminating the Old Dominion from the equation. The residential sections of the District should be apportioned back to the bordering Fourth and Eighth Congressional Districts of Maryland – both of which are majority Democratic districts.

Both Congressmen Donna Edwards (D-4th) and Chris Van Hollen (D-8th) are in little jeopardy of failing to win reelection this November. Since Van Hollen defeated moderate Republican Connie Morella in 2002, Democratic candidates are all but assured of victory every other November and this would not disturb the proverbial electoral apple cart or the balance of power.

If anything, eventually such gerrymandering of the District of Columbia would create a need for a ninth district in Maryland and in that part of the state it would more than likely be a Democratically-held seat when reapportionment comes up in a future census. That said, I cannot be accused of partisan politics here.

The District of Columbia would be preserved as the seat of the government of the United States of America, the House of Representatives would remain steadfast with its 435 members and the Senate would also retain its present count of 100 senators. Crisis averted and all remains right in this corner of the world.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Willie LowMan said on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    My lips got tired reading this post.

  2. Hazegray said on 26 Apr 2010 at 2:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Willie LowMan said on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:12 pm

    My lips got tired reading this post.

    Maybe so, but his references and reasoning are pretty solid.
    IMHO part of the reason for many of our current problems is that too many people want “60 second sound bite” solutions, meaning if it takes longer than that to explain the issue then they aren’t interested. Unfortuneately, if you don’t fully understand something then you are susceptible to having someone who does tell you part of the story and sway your opinion. Of course, if you don’t care about the facts (liberal left and radical right) then it really isn’t a problem, except 60% of the voters are somewhere in the middle and not ideologically locked into a particular viewpoint….

  3. Ron Homan said on 26 Apr 2010 at 4:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    One would think they would take the time to read the Constitution.

  4. wineplz said on 26 Apr 2010 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    great article and thank you for the references to the particular passages within the Constitution.

  5. Kevin C said on 26 Apr 2010 at 10:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hazegray said on 26 Apr 2010 at 2:58 pm: “…the reason for many of our current problems is that too many people want “60 second sound bite” solutions, meaning if it takes longer than that to explain the issue then they aren’t interested.”

    Combine that with the FACT that 95% of the population form their opinions just by reading (or listening to) the HEADLINES and it explains why this country is where it is today !!!

  6. Austin said on 27 Apr 2010 at 6:57 am:
    Flag comment

    I do not often way in anymore, but I found this an outstanding article. I do feel the citizens of DC deserve representation, but I did not like the alternatives being offered. It seems this is a fair and balanced suggestion and it would eliminate the issue.

  7. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 6:59 am:
    Flag comment

    “However, that being said, no one forced the residents of DC to become such, thus making their demands of representation disingenuous.”

    That statement itself is a perfect example of being disingenuous. The author wishes to dismiss the issue of the lack of representation in Congress for citizens who have for generations paid taxes, died in our wars and met all the other obligations of citizenship so he flippantly says that no one forces them to live in the District. All they have to do is move somewhere else. Otherwise, “screw them” is his learned argument for the lack of need to address this injustice.

    Some of us were born in the district as were our ancestors. I am a fifth generation Washingtonian. My family’s service to the country includes participation in several of our wars beginning with the Civil War and service to the city on the police department and in the criminal justice system. But Mr. Horn dismisses the lack of representation of such people with his highly disingenuous comment that they are not forced to live in the District and all they have to do is move and all is well.

    There are legitimate Constitutional issues that need to be addressed in granting DC residents the representation they should and must have. That may well entail amending the Constitution. Or perhaps retrocession to Maryland is the answer (with a small Federal Enclave remaining apart). But these are not insurmountable hurdles. If one is committed to seeing that the people of DC have the same representation as all other Americans.

    If one’s true motivation is to continue depriving the people of DC representation because they will likely vote contrary to your partisan leanings then you would, of course, want to dismiss the core issue as unimportant. As Mr. Horn so disingenuously does.

  8. Willie LowMan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:00 am:
    Flag comment

    True that, Dan.

  9. CapitolHillBilly said on 27 Apr 2010 at 10:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Many years ago, I moved to Capitol Hill from the midwest. As a
    lifelong hunter and gun owner, I was appalled at the draconian gun
    laws in DC and chose to leave mine with a friend in rural Maryland
    instead of jumping through all their hoops. I usually hunted in either
    Virginia or Maryland and never though of bringing them into DC.
    I could have spent the rest of my life arguing with local politicians
    but rather than bow to them, I moved to Md. DC is very hostile
    towards law abing gun owners and it was best for me.

    During the five years I lived there, I became aware that the elected
    officials reeked of corruption. In addition, I also realized that the
    electorate in DC is incredibly irresonsible as well. As far as I’m
    concerned, DC’s residents do not deserve representation in Congress
    as long as they continue to tolerate a city government that does
    not even know how many employees there are on it’s payroll. They
    are also willing to tolerate a school system that has a 50% truancy
    rate every day and it’s halls are like a combat zone. Despite
    Michelle Rhee’s serious attempts at getting control of things, she
    will probably be thrown out after the next election cycle because
    she demands accountability. With just the above factors in mind,
    (and there are many more) I cannot help but wonder what kind of
    corrupt clowns they’d be sending to the Congress if they did have
    voting representation.

  10. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 10:36 am:
    Flag comment

    CapitolHillBilly, what the people of the District would or would not do with voting representation is not at all the issue. I assure you that over the past 150 years my family has witnessed some of the biggest bozos imaginable sent here by the good people of various states and Congressional districts around the country. It is hard to fathom what those good people were thinking when they elected some of these clowns. But whatever you wish to attribute their horrendous choices to, it is not grounds for denying them the right to elected representation anymore than your disapproval of the people of DC is grounds for denying them the right to Congressional representation.

    If electing questionable characters who have no business taking up space on Capitol Hill was the standard to be followed in denying the vote then one hell of a lot of states and districts would have long ago been stripped of their representation.

  11. CapitolHillBilly said on 27 Apr 2010 at 1:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    “what the people of the District would or would not do with voting representation is not at all the issue.”

    It was and still is and issue for me. I have also voiced my opinion to
    my own Congressman, Gerry (ConMan) Conolly. Not that it matters
    to him anyway. I for one would not care to see Marion Barry
    in the House of Representatives even though I’m no longer a
    resident. If they (DC) were to have full voting representation there
    would be a flood of candidates. How does Judge Roy (Where’s my pants)
    Pearson sound? This is only an incremental approach towards
    full Statehood and that would be a nightmare.

  12. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 2:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    CapitolHilBilly, I could point to numerous examples of current and former members of Congress from both parties who would make your examples seem tame by comparison. Are you seriously proposing that hundreds of thousands of people be taxed and called upon to fight our wars but be denied representation in Congress because you disapprove of the choices they “might” make with their votes?

    If you are going to use electing lunatics as your standard for disenfranchisement there are loads of folks you will be taking the vote from. In the interest of keeping partisanship out of the discussion, I will give you a recent example from each party.

    Should we permanently disenfranchise the people of Georgia’s 11th district because they elected a complete lunatic like Cynthia McKinney? Don’t jump on that one too fast simply because that lunatic is a Democrat. There are plenty of Republican examples.

    What about the folks in Minnesota’s 6th district? Should they be permanently disenfranchised for electing a lunatic like Michele Bachmann? She may vote your way in the House, but she is hardly what you pictured in your civics class when you were learning about Congress. She is completely around the bend.

    Democracy seems to work pretty well. Sometimes we win. Sometimes we lose. But it is a damned fine way for settling our differences. And denying people representation in Congress while expecting them to meet all the responsibilities of citizenship is hardly consistent with our principles.

    I seem to remember something about some guys throwing tea into Boston harbor over this idea of taxation without representation. I don’t recall them saying they only wanted representation for people who always agreed with them.

    It’s time the folks in the District got voting representation. Long past time really. If we truly believe in what we say we believe in anyway. I hope playing for partisan advantage doesn’t trump the right to vote. If it does then our beliefs and so called principles have very little value.

    And maybe we need to start notifying the voters in those districts currently represented by nitwits that we have decided they don’t get to vote anymore either. Or we could check our arrogance and realize that the collective wisdom of all the people is greater than the wisdom of any one of us.

  13. Citizen12 said on 27 Apr 2010 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yea, that’s it, just ignore the Constitution, again. It’s not enough the entire congress is responsible for D.C., the residents want the Constitution changed to accommodate just them. The nearly 40 years of shaky home rule aside, this is a federal district and should continue to be considered as such.

    For over 200 years people have moved to D.C. of their own free will knowing full well the purpose and structure of this district. Those finding that the lack of an elected representative to congress should far outweigh the benefits they have received should feel just as free to quietly peruse that fulfillment elsewhere in one of our fifty states.

  14. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 3:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizen12, I am having difficulty reconciling the two completely contradictory reasons being put forward to support the notion that District residents should be denied voting representation.

    On the one hand I am reading that they should be denied voting rights because they might elect incompetent representatives (which, as I have pointed out, would not make them unique in Congress). And that the choices they have made in local representation is proof of this. Not to mention the citation of various problems of the city being used as a reason for this denial of voting rights. Now you claim that merely living in the city bestows such benefits that it somehow far outweighs being denied the representation that is the very foundation of our form of government.

    No one is proposing to ignore the Constitution. In fact, the important Constitutional issues have been candidly admitted as important to address by those looking to right this situation. Others may wish to use those issues as an excuse to do nothing.

    A mere ninety years ago women weren’t allowed to vote. We didn’t ignore the Constitution in addressing that. We amended it. And women were no longer excluded from participating in their government.

    The people of DC shouldn’t be excluded from participating in their government either. That is just plain wrong. And contrary to the principles for which we say we stand.

  15. CapitolHillBilly said on 27 Apr 2010 at 4:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    You’re wasting your keystrokes on me. When I lived in DC, I
    experienced quite a bit of hostility from the “trash the 2nd
    Amendment crowd” and I will be equally as respectful to them.
    Until they get off their duff’s and admit that the 2nd Amendment
    applies to everybody, irregardless of where they live, they
    can forget any support from me. Nuf said.

  16. Groveton said on 27 Apr 2010 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The US Constitution has been ignored for years by Washington. The Commerce Clause giving the federal government almost total power? The right to privacy? Mandatory contracts between citizens and insurers?

    Dear Leader is one or two justices away from killing the second amendment. Hand guns will be in the same category as bazookas. The Heller decision was 5-4, no?

    Mr. Horn says that a constitutional amendment starts with a two thirds vote of both houses of Congress. That’s one way. The other is a convention called by a vote by two thirds of the state legislatures - whether the jokers in Washington like it or not. If constitutional changes are defined by the constitutional convention then the matter goes to the states where a three fourths vote is required - whether the jokers in Washington like it or not.

    Cuccinelli’s lawsuits are a start. Arizona’s taking control of their own destiny on immigration is a start. State legislatures passing bills recognizing the 10th Amendment is a start. But they are only starts. This matter won’t be finished until the US Constitution is re-written with clear and severe restrictions on the authority of the central government.

    Virginia’s constitution has been completely revamped seven times since it was originally written. The last rewriting was passed in 1970, before that it was 1902. And that’s just how Thomas Jefferson would have wanted it…

    “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”.

    Thomas Jefferson

  17. Groveton said on 27 Apr 2010 at 6:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    I thought you guys would like this:


    Maybe when McDonnell’s term ends we can talk this guy into moving here.

  18. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    CapitolHillBilly, I fail to see the linkage between the 2nd Amendment and the denial of voting rights. Once again you seem to be making the argument that your disagreement with the majority of District residents on a political issue is a justification for denying them voting representation. Hardly a valid argument. Or one that is consistent with the principles on which our nation was founded.

    Since the 2nd Amendment seems to be your hot button, let’s talk about the new concealed carry law in Arizona as opposed to the law in Virginia. I believe Virginia’s law is quite sensible. Pretty much anyone who is not a convicted felon can get a permit. But a permit is required. This is very helpful, for instance, to the police officer who may pull me over for speeding while I am carrying. As I hand him my license and registration I can also hand him my concealed carry permit and let him know that I am armed. He then doesn’t have to guess as to why I am carrying that handgun under my jacket and treat me as a hazard to his safety.

    I think the Arizona law is insane. And if I were a police officer in Arizona I would be livid that such a stupid law had been passed that made my job that much more difficult and hazardous. Does my opinion of the Arizona law and the fact that the people of Arizona elected the morons who passed it create a rational argument for disenfranchising Arizonans? Of course not. Any more than does your disagreement with District residents over a political issue.

    Sometimes you have to do what is right. Even if it is not to your political advantage in the short run. Inventing reasons to do the wrong thing for a short term advantage has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass in the long term.

  19. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Groveton, your concerns about the balance of the Court are hardly justified. The liberal justices are all old. Those are the ones the current president is going to be replacing. The conservatives are all relatively young and won’t likely be retiring while Obama is in office.

    The Court has been moving steadily to the right over several decades now. To the point where a moderate Republican like Stevens who was appointed by a conservative Republican president is referred to as the most liberal justice on the court. Trust me, Stevens didn’t change. The Court did. Just as our politics have been moving steadily to the right over the same period.

    Relax. You have been winning. There is no justification for your paranoia about the 2nd Amendment. Obama has said or done nothing that would indicate any intention to alter the 2nd Amendment. All the nonsense you hear about that is not supported by the facts. It is designed to keep you stirred up and voting the right way. Another beneficiary has been the gun dealers. Business has never been better. Silly people buying more guns and ammunition than they would ever possibly need out of an irrational fear that their guns are going to be “grabbed” by the government has been the best thing that has ever happened to gun shops. What the hell. It is helping the economy.

    I wouldn’t be so fast to praise that new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. While I understand the frustration of a border state with the situation absent any sort of enforcement of a rational national policy, the law has provisions that should give any small government conservative pause. Some Fourth Amendment issues that are a particular concern.

    Frankly, the Fourth Amendment has been under consistent assault under the last several presidential administrations. Far more so than the 2nd. You might want to focus where the danger to your freedom really lies. Not where those manipulating you want you to focus.

    You want restrictions on the federal government that protect your freedom? That is exactly what the Bill of Rights does. Unless you are asleep at the switch while most of it is effectively repealed. And at that point, your arsenal of small arms is going to be pretty pitiful protection.

  20. Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Did like the coyote story though.

    But are hollow points really necessary for a jogging weapon?

  21. Groveton said on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:01 pm:
    Flag comment


    My philosophy is simple - the closer a government is to the people it governs, the better the system works. I want less power in the hands of the federal government and more in the hands of the states. I want power transferred from the states to the localities.

    In my opinion, the federal government operates at a scope and scale not legal under the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has been aiding and abetting that illegal behavior for quite some time. Gibbons v Ogden was the start. The Interstate Commerce Act dramatically accelerated the problem and FDR institutionalized the Supreme Court as a vassal of the political elite. In fact, Roosevelt was really the beginning of the end for the constitution in any meaningful sense. His utter disdain for the constitution was epitomized by his egomaniacal attempt to pack the court. However, what he failed to accomplish in one fell swoop he put into place through his ridiculously long administration. He eventually neutered the court. However, I’ll give him credit for one thing. His hapless entitlement policies have so devauled the American currency I can easily afford to spit on dimes bearing his graven image and throw them in the trash.

    As for Arizona, I don’t really know if their new immigration law is effective or not. Frankly, I don’t care. Why? Because it’s not my business. I don’t live in Arizona and, as I wrote, I believe in decentralizing government power. Al Franken doesn’t speak for me and I don’t speak for the good people of Arizona.

    As for the 2nd amendment - don’t fool yourself. The majority and their ages: Scalia (74), Roberts (55), Kennedy (74), Thomas (63), Alito (60). Now imagine the worst possible case - namely, that Dear Leader gets re-elected in 2012. His second term wouldn’t end until 2016. Scalia and Kennedy would be 80. The life expectancy for a male in the United States is presently 75.6 years of age. God forbid that anything happens to any of those 5 guys because Dear Leader undoubetdly has another Wise Latina ready to send the second amendment straight to Hell(er).

  22. Ron said on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:38 am:
    Flag comment

    How about this — Repeal Federal income taxes on DC residents until such time as they have voting representation in Congress. I wonder what that would do to the District?

  23. CapitolHillBilly said on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:55 am:
    Flag comment

    It really doesn’t matter if you think my argument is valid or not
    because you’re only trolling. Conceal and Carry laws in Arizona
    would be way off topic here so I will just say that Vermont and
    Alaska have the same laws and it works fine. I would have loved
    to have seen the look on Elanor Home-Snortin’s face when she
    heard the news on this one:


    And just think. If she hadn’t had such a hostile attitude she could
    have been on her way to a full voting seat in the House but now
    its over and it looks like DC is going to have their 2nd Amendment
    rights restored. Heh..Heh…:) Tough election coming up for Harry Reid
    and I don’t think he wants to wind up in a fight with the NRA.:)

  24. Citizen12 said on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:48 pm:

    But are hollow points really necessary for a jogging weapon?


    Dan, the hollow point is the preferred selection for self defense, not a fitness or fashion accessory.

  25. CapitolHillBilly said on 28 Apr 2010 at 10:55 am:
    Flag comment

    “Citizen12 said on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:36 am: Flag comment

    Dan said on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:48 pm:

    But are hollow points really necessary for a jogging weapon?


    Dan, the hollow point is the preferred selection for self defense, not a fitness or fashion accessory.”

    If Dan has to ask such a question, he probably isn’t very familar
    with firearms or hunting in the first place. HP’s are also a preferred
    round for coyote. I prefer my Ruger Mini-14 loaded with Federal’s
    in a 30 round mag myself.

  26. NoVA Scout said on 29 Apr 2010 at 10:53 am:
    Flag comment

    The solution for voting rights in DC always has been the approach suggested in Mr. Horn’s post - return DC to Maryland and let the citizens meld in with the population (and apportionments) there. The idea that some mid-size town gets two senators and a representative in the House is preposterous and should never be received in any forum without and accompanying chorus of guffaws…

  27. CapitolHillBilly said on 29 Apr 2010 at 11:26 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout,
    Are you sure the folks in Maryland would actually go along with this
    without a major fight? I doubt it.

  28. NoVA Scout said on 29 Apr 2010 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, we’ve absorbed Arlington County without too much discomfort, CHB (although I’m sure there are a few in this space who would advocate tossing it back to the District).

    More seriously, you raise a valid point that Maryland, ideally, would need to be on board for this. I’m not sure how that would play out. On balance, I think I could make a plausible argument that, properly organized, it would work to Maryland’s benefit.

Comments are closed.

Views: 1892