Gun Writer is suddenly a pariah.

[Sgent]

286. I never said it would pass

the constitution explicitly requires individual state ascension to lose power in the Senate. This would of course never happen politically. However, there is precedent for splitting one state into more -- see Virginia.

That being said, just because something was done at a point in time due to political expediency, doesn't mean its the correct result. The Senate, and to a lesser extent presidential elections as they take place currently, are setup explicitly to be ant-democratic institutions. The entire reason for their existence is empower one set of citizens over another due to the history of the country.

In today's world, is that a good result? Is the compromise that was reasonable at 13:1 still reasonable at 65:1? This entire thread goes back to the assertion that we will be able to pass a gun control amendment in the next 20-30 years because of the change in population centers, and my counter-assertion that such an amendment would be impossible due to the outsized influence of smaller (population) states. I did not initially express an opinion on whether this was a good or bad thing. We are well beyond that discussion although I'd be glad to join in a new thread.