[The Immortal Goon]

a fake republic that is propped up at the moment and is still somehow constrained by the law.

There is no "fake" anything.

The Republic? It has been dead since the early 20th Century.

They can untie all of it if they want to. I don't see DC becoming a state, because it's the seat of the federal government and embedded into the federal constitution. It would take two thirds of both the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify that, because you have to answer the question about the location of the seat of government.

It wouldn't necessarily take two thirds of both houses and 3/4ths of the state legislature to ratify it. That would only happen if your view won out. Just as easily would be the argument that the vast majority of DC residents use that they are entitled to voting representation that they do not have access to. Regardless, the fact that the Democrats are too craven and cowardly to even push such an agenda while the Republicans openly said that they were going to, "ratfuck," the state legislatures by gerrymandering them in such a way that Democrats would lose votes and political influence (1, 2, 3).

It's going to the Supreme Court now via Wisconsin. The GOP will argue that there's nothing specifically illegal about ratfucking the majority of people out of their votes for party politics. And they'll be right. The Democrats will be arguing that the Constitution guarantees that people's votes count. And they'll be right.

As to who will prevail, that's going to be the question. Not like DC though, where it largely comes to a similar question that the Democrats are too timid and pathetic to bring up. The entire point to this diversion is that the Republicans are willing to push the line and take everything they can. The Democrats are willing to mention something to get a vote and the sulk like children—and then wonder why people don't think they're a dynamic party.

The same is largely true for the Democrats on Puerto Rico.

There are a lot of parts of the current system that people think are rights or are permanent.

All rights are essentially useless ideas unless practiced. There is no such thing as a "right" that you can hold. A government can give you the right to have a gun all you want without ever allowing you to own a gun. It only becomes a right in the case that you're holding and using said gun. Otherwise, it's just inane bluster.

I think for the purposes of a political revolution that you'd prefer, first you'd have to start with the Federal Reserve.

I wouldn't bother with the Federal Reserve. Kill all the bankers and illegalize private enterprise, and the Federal Reserve will become redundant upon its own.

The Second Amendment is very clear that "The People" have the right to keep and bear arms.

It is not.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The relation of the bolded to the unbolded has always been vague.

Clearly the "well regulated militia" was the subject, and the reason for it being is, "the security of a free state," and then it goes on to give a solution. People can, and have, drawn all kinds of different interpretations for how that word salad is related to each other.

You just need a clearer picture to realize the Democrats are not your friends.

I do?

When in this thread, or ever, have I maintained that the Democrats were ever my friends?