I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

I ain't patriotic hate this country.

 

And what do you propose instead? After you answer that... do you not realize the Constitution has provisions and a defined process for changing it’s provisions?

 

A *******n damn parliment with ranked choice. Also no Senate

 

That is a legislative body, not a codified common purpose, set of guiding principles, not provisions for governance for outlining civil authority, nor any definition of the purview and limitations of government over the governed.
Let’s face it, you have’t an In depth knowledge of governance theory, of the US Constitution, or regard for the rights of individuals, rather a declared hatred and bias towards Americans for which this forum provides the excuse for your package of rants. Rant on... you have nothing of value to add to a discussion, just the snarling of bias and hate.

 

See Article V.

 

He doesn’t care, he’s not interested in substantive debate.

 

Heh, sorry I mean the regular left!

 

The same ninth circuit court of appeals that ruled, for the state of Hawaii, that openly carrying a firearm in public was a constitutionally protected right?

 

At one point in the history of the united states, it was the will of the people that blacks be slaves, and that homosexuals be put to death for practices carried out within the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Simply because the people want something, does not mean it is constitutional, legal, or allowable.

 

Beyond the fact that what is proposed by yourself is physically impossible to actually execute?

The united states was also built on the idea of government being intended to serve the people, not the other way around.

Also worth noticing is the ninth amendment within the united states constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In short, simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, no right held by the people can be used as a legal basis for restricting the second amendment.

 

Then by all means, feel free to leave to whatever country is considered superior by yourself, rather than trying to ruin what everyone else has and actually enjoys.

 

What is to stop someone from just driving through the check point or s

Let me get this straight. You want to create a private kingdom in the middle of some shithole like Muddy Gap, Wyoming or Fallon, Nevada with a wall around it so you can have a gun free society where you search everyone upon entry and rifle through their mail and packages and can evict anyone that disagrees with your opinion about guns and you think people will actually put up with that nonsense. Is that about right?

Good luck.

 

Apparently I am being hateful by pointing out that the US is headed for a constitutional crisis where the constitution will likely fail.

The government first Federal
The Congress should be replaced by a parliament with 1000 people where instead of electing legislatures in districts, people vote for the individual executive legislative candidates that are not under any party. Each state hold one, and for every 0.1% of the population they have they get 1 seat. The voting is proportional, If candidate A in Cali gets 10% of the vote then they get to appoint 12 of the 120 seats.

After all the seats are filled then the parliament has a vote to elect the Executive legislator. If no one can get a majority then the top 2 go in a run off.

Thats where the people being represented stops, the next group of positions are all completely independent of the people or politics.

The Governor General is appointed by the British monarchy, and serves for life, then appoints the senate who also serve for life 2 persons from each state that have completed the DR degree in their field and who are sworn to be completely unbiased. Then they check legislation to make sure it is both in the best interest of the people and that it is uncorrupted. The Senate then appoints the Supreme court, all of whom must have a law degree and served at least 10 years as a judge with out bias on the record.

Same basically for the states.

 

1. Only mail that has metal in it will be checked.
2. Only those who run for office in support of the 2A will be jailed
3. The only place that has enough land is the unpopulated middle america. The good liberal state actually have well you know um people.

 

I'm sure you've been told this, but you're assumption that you'd be free from gun violence is incorrect. What's to stop a criminal with a gun from simply robbing people he knows have no guns? Do you plan to make it illegal to break the law?

 

"I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.'

you would have to be rich and own all the land, then on your own land you could ban guns

 

1) So besides shredding the Second Amendment you're going to shred the First too. Awesome. People like me will be mailing boxes of nails to everyone in your prison city just to **** up your entire system.

2) ...and now you're advocating violating even more constitutional rights. Awesome.

3) Where do you live, kid? Have you ever flown over "middle America"? It's highly populated. Just not as densely populated as most liberal shitholes like Chicago, New York and LA. The only place where you'll find large unpopulated tracks of land will be in the deserts and badlands.

 

But he couldn't enforce it. Criminals would still be criminals. He'd have to hire armed guards for the same things we have armed guards now. Even if the city was walled off with only those guns inside, some crooked guard would be bribed or have their gun(s) stolen. Human nature would prevail in all of it's insane glory.

 

Probably more straight forward than just educating people.

 

Only people that would move to the city would be anti 2A people, we would be living the life with out fear of shooting and with more opertunity then the rest of the country. UHC free college Universal Housing completely green economy you name it.

 

History is a great teacher. It proves there really is nothing new under the Sun when it comes to human nature. While you could, indeed, carefully screen people for your little city, people change over time, especially from their 20s to their 40s. Especially if one criminal gets in to rape and murder an entire family. Then there is the inevitable factor of children. Children don't always take after their parents and they are hard to judge until they've become full-fledged adults.

What is your plan there? Hang a few kids as an example to the others? Banish 12 year olds into the desert if they start an ACLU office to fight for Constitutional rights?

 

Yep, guns kill and gun nuts don't give a toss.

 

They wont be told that guns, are in the constitution. They will be taught that the 2A is purely for the right for states to raise militias. If they ask they will be told it is false, as it is.

 

So you'll also impose censorship and maximize the Nanny State to the level of the People's Republic of China. Awesome. The bad news for you is that the little dictatorship still exists within a nation that does have a Constitution. Your little city would be given the same treatment as a cult harming children with Federal tanks rolling through the walls.

 

FWIW, such an authoritarian state would work far better in a country that still worships the Queen of England such as Australia, Canada or England itself. Americans threw the ****ing Redcoats out centuries ago, but some nations still bow down to what's left of the British Empire.