So I completely agree with this sentiment. I always hear in the counter-argument that the city makes up XX% of the population and gets to have greater influence... yada yada. Here's my issue with that. That undermines 100% of the idea of the most important gov't being local. Take Chicago and IL for example. People in Chicago (because they have gun violence and believe in banning guns) want no one to have guns except the police. Most of IL is farm land, where you would need to shoot an animal to put it down because you are miles away from the next house, let alone veterinarian. Obviously this argument doesn't take into consideration that the 2nd amendment exists. Obviously, everyone should be able to carry a firearm (IAW constitution). This is an argument a lefty could understand. Basically, farmers are forced to live under laws of city folk, where as Chicago could have its own law structure specific to them. When it turns to crap, people will leave and go elsewhere, thus places will figure out individually/ independently what works and what doesn't. Same would hold true comparing suburbia to city or suburbia to rural America.