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

Agreed on private property....but we've seen many anti-gun LWers advocate banning guns and even confiscation so it's good to see you're against that.

However, the problem is his plan involves keeping them prisoner and depriving them of outside information, hence why I've pointed out it resembles a cult.

 

you seem so confused, I support the 2nd, I agree with you, but you seem to be blinded of that, not sure why, is it because I also support a private home owner not allowing guns on their property? I also feel they have that right

 

I would not support him kidnapping people either, if people want to leave, they should be allowed to leave (I must of missed that part)

I am against that, Trump was the one that said he wanted to take your guns before due process...



I am pro 1st and 2nd, I support your right to own a gun or not, I support your right to believe in a God or not

 

They can leave, if they want

 

then it's up to you to allow guns or not
and up to them to stay there or not

the reason a city could not do that is then it's a government doing it

same would be true of a Atheist city or a Theist city, the city could not mandate these things due to religious freedom rights

but on private property you could decide if people say grace before the meal or not as an example - and they could choose not to stay there if they did not agree

 

That wasn't an NRA decision - it's a Secret Service rule. Guns were still allowed outside the speech venue.

 

Such was a requirement set forth by the secret service, not by the NRA, nor by the venue in which it was hosted. the difference, however, is that the secret service was present and armed in order to ensure the safety of everyone present, not simply Donald Trump. During the speech, everyone in the venue was subject to the protection of what is regarded as the best security detail in the united states.

 

Pray tell, how does the above differ from the message regarding the courts that was presented on the part of myself?

One does not need to actually break a law in order to be victimized by efforts to deny the people their constitutionally recognized and protected rights. The right to having a firearm for purposes of self defense is one such right.

The eleventh amendment does not apply in this particular case.

 

Pretty ironic to see the right defending the NRA deny gun owners the right to carry guns

 

You weren't paying attention - the NRA didn't deny gun owners any rights; the limitation was set by the federal government.

 

sure they did, they choose to host their event in a area that did not allow guns, thus they told their members they could not bring their guns

the NRA did not have to agree to host their event at a gun free zone

I love how the right is trying to defend their hosting an event at a gun free zone, come on, what if this was a dem event, would you be so quick to defend them? be honest.....

 

You don't know much about available convention space for large events, nor do you seem to realize that the hall where Pence spoke was only gun free while Pence was there. The NRA convention has thousands of guns in display from manufacturers; if it were gun free, those guns wouldn't be there. They didn't have to remove them during Pence's speech either

 

I believe in individual liberty, one of the principles underlying the Constitution which include the right to decide the rules followed on one’s property. But, the Constitutional and property rights also have limits, those limits
Xenamnes

you are describing what Chicago and DC tried to do...worked well, eh?

 

Prove that such was actually a decision set forth by the NRA, rather than a requirement of the secret service itself. Demonstrate that the argument being presented by yourself is indeed factual, rather than a false interpretation.

 

ok, let's say it was as you say, the Trump admin's SS that banned guns at the NRA event... is that any better?

and I never heard the NRA complain about it, they seemed fine that it was a gun free zone

 

The suits against your HOA would be in state court.

 

Its not a HOA, it will be ran/enforced like a real city.

Maybe I could make it a themed city (Knights, dukes, Kings, bishups, and the female versions of all of those positions.) so that the government would not force the constitution on the city.

 

That anti gun utopia is not enforceable. Going to have armed men shake everyone and their vehicles down, for guns at the border?

 

I can't believe a fantasy thread has gone this far.

 

Yes, everyone will be searched like an airport check point and canadian US boarder checkpoint.

 

Good luck finding anyone to sign up.
What's the quote, "those who sacrifice freedom for safety, have neither".

The vast majority of gun violence is gang related.

 

Guns have been the main reason why for why for almost all of US history labor has been a slave to the corperate masters.

Guns were used in the south to force slaves and indentured servants to stay on the farm, then the 2A was used to pay/create private armies that forced workers to stay in the factories, if they refused they would kill the strikers. Now we are wage slaves, and the police will side with the corporations. When are you going to say ENOUGH and break the chain of bondage that is the 2A!

 

That's quite ridiculous. England is largely disarmed, is it some workers utopia?
A disarmed society is as the mercy of criminals that ignore laws and the authorities.
No thanks.

 

They have $15 living wage in the UK and basic paid leave (sick, maternal, vacation)