ND was the state mentioned as not wanting to wear masks in the hypothetical, stated it wouldn’t impact NYC spread. ND isn’t the only red (or any color) state where people don’t want to wear masks. The comment was then made how many people are going to travel from ND (same hypothetical state) to NYC during a pandemic.
I know Sturgis isn’t Dakotas only (although SD is obviously the host), but that furthers the point. People are dumb everywhere (which I said). Having local governments that reject masks does impact the spread in places that follow scientific guidelines, and since the hypothetical was ND not wearing masks doesn’t impact NYC spread…
The question is how many people in NYC don’t want to wear masks either. Just living in NYC doesn’t make you a smart upstanding citizen. In fact 670,000ish NYC voters voted for Trump. That is more than the 540,000ish that voted for him in ND and SD combined. So their are more Trumpkins in NYC than the Dakotas. Watch out NYC residents. You can’t get rid of them that easy.
there are more people in nyc than the dakotas. of course some of them voted for trump. where the heck did i claim otherwise? i grew up on the south shore of staten island. it’s HIGHLY republican and a lot of trumpkins there. the majority of manhattan is anti-trump though.
i hate staten island. the people there suck. it’s still nyc though even though they have tried several times to secede from nyc.
then there are these dipshits in queens who are now getting death threats apparently
They might still keep a residence in Manhattan and have their own “Mar-a-Lago” type residence in sunny south Florida. It’ll take a while to build their home on the empty lot.
Huh, sure it does. We have no borders within the US.
Not really. I mean, Canada doesn’t let you smuggle guns in from the US. I suppose we have to many little roads criss crossing the state lines to have proper borders without a lot of work.
I don’t think so. All of the rural northeast is pro-gun. They hunt. Uber liberal vermont has pretty liberal gun laws. So does Maine. NH is the “live free or die” state. MA has strict gun laws, but they are all written as “at the discretion of the chief of police” to make it easy for people in rural MA to own guns. NY has a similar urban/rural divide. I dunno, maybe CT and RI would have tough gun laws.
Why should “involve interstate travel” require federal tax dollars? If you split off as your own country, you wouldn’t expect the people in ND to pay for your airport, much less your easy rail transit from Manhattan. Commercial airports can be funded by landing fees. If local people think they should be tax subsidized, they can add some local tax money. The same is even more true for local ground transit.
Nope, there wouldn’t be a Spanish Inquisition at the border. Just like there isn’t a SI at the border between the US and Canada. The international border doesn’t do much to reduce the gun trade. The laws that prohibit possession are much more effective.
An international border around NYC would have very little impact on gun possession inside NYC.