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

What of those who are physically disabled and thus incapable of engaging in such?

 

Anything is better then a gun. I would even prefer people use acid to the face then use a gun for protection,

All of my kids will be taught constantly that guns equal death. If one came home with a gun for any reason, I would yell louder and scarier then ever before, grab the gun, throw it into a trash can lit on fire, and then (if over Eighteen suspend them from coming inside the house for a month. If under 18, cut off all technology for 6 months, with the exception of use of computer for school.

 

They are an exception. Although they do have high speed wheelchairs now so they could just drive away or run them over.

 

Your sick, mentally ill, end of this conversation.

 

Let us see if we can analyze the numerous criminal offenses that would be committed in the above statement of intent

• Domestic violence
• Destruction of private property
• Improper disposal of a firearm
• Attempted arson
• Possible child abuse

Is anything being missed in the above?

 

Then what is ultimately being proposed on the part of yourself is the hypothetical state choosing to sacrifice the elderly and disabled, allowing them to be preyed upon and ultimately murdered to remove them from the equation, so that only the physically fit remain. Is not such simply another form of eugenics?

 

Probably only one.

Nope, other then that specific issue, I would be actually extremely calm and "lezefair" type parent giving my children as much independance as they want when they want it as long as they are not hurting themselves or violating the law. Yelling because someone brought a deadly weapon into your house does not constitute domestic violence, it constitutes making them recognise how serious it is, by this being the only time I would ever yell angrily.

Nope, not if under 18, and if over 18 if they are still in the house I have the right to remove and destroy a deadly weapon regardless of ownership.

Probably the only actual crime but it is Michigan so fire is not a real threat here

Nope fire used to despose is not arson.

Nope as stated, only 2 times I would yell, to stop them from doing something that they are about to get seriously hurt by or because they have a firearm.

Nope you over stated all but one of these.

 

You are assuming such persons would be able to use a gun adequately. Elderly persons are slow on reaction and disabled persons likely have trouble shooting accurately.

 

Anyone who would propose to torture and send off to a slow and very painful death another human, even if that human is criminal, is not of sound mind and in my opinion has no heart or soul.

I had a girlfriend who's daughter was accidently splashed with muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid), she was rushed to Holy Cross hospital in North Broward which is a excellent facility.

Even though we where no longer dating I stopped by to support mom and her new boyfriend as much a I could, the child's face, what little of it could be seen was purple and constantly draining fluids, she died after four days of suffering.

Recommending something like tossing acid at a person is so cruel and inhumane, it isn't imaginable to me.

If given the choice, I would without a doubt take being shot over such a way of dying.

 

It is not merely assumed. Rather it is acknowledged that such is the way things are for many individual in the united states, and there are no other alternatives. Thus they are being condemned to death in the proposal on the part of yourself.

Such is not a legitimate reason for classifying them as obsolete and ultimately killing them, however.

 

That's horrible sorry about her daughter, I meant something that is strong enough to burn but not kill.

 

If such is what was ultimately meant, then more careful efforts should have been engaged in to elaborate such as being the case.

 

Yeah just like when the GOP wanted to let Blind people carry. You don't agree with that right?

 

Pray tell what sort of nonsense is even being spouted on the part of yourself this time around? Cite the basis of such.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iowa-guns-blind/

 

So you don't think blind people should be able to defend themselves?

 

With a gun no, no I do not, not ever. If you are too blind for a drivers license you are to blind for a gun.

 

Not true.

https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm07/bm0702/bm070209.htm

http://www.acb.org/content/blind-hunting-tom-lealos

 

Well as long as they have someone who can see sign off on them and agree to take all legal, civil and criminal responsibility for any missed shot fired by the blind person go ahead. Also as long as they stay in Iowa and don't try that "Full faith and credits clause" Bull to try and go somewhere else.

 

You are precluded from doing any of those things, by the constitution

 

Aren't you just the petty despot.

 

The 21st amendment allows states to ban alcohol, and thus tobacco as well. This supreme court will likely allow abortion to be banned and I can just put a bunch of hurdles around the 2A to make it to much of a legal risk for people to risk it.

 

Factually incorrect. It was the eighteenth amendment that empowered the united states government to prohibit alcoholic beverages. And when it was found how such a move proved disastrous and only strengthened the criminal element, the twenty first amendment was ratified for the express purpose of repealing the eighteenth amendment, meaning that supposed empowerment and authority ceased to exist.

 

Was the article even read on the part of yourself prior to presenting it for consideration? It is likely that such did not occur, otherwise it would not have been presented to begin with.

The article speaks about the state of Iowa no longer requiring live firearms practice for someone to acquire a firearms ownership permit, and restricting the authority of the state to deny firearms permits in an arbitrary or otherwise capricious fashion, simply because the one issuing the permit believes the person applying is unfit for legal firearms ownership and is relying on their own personal biases rather than on facts. The simple fact that visually-challenged individuals were included on the list does not mean the state government chose explicitly to allow firearms ownership to such individuals. More accurately it was the government determining that it did not have the legal authority to deny constitutional rights on the basis of physical health, as such would ultimately be deemed a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it were challenged in court.

That particular matter aside, the article itself points out that the state of Iowa has suffered no incidents related to visually-impaired firearm owners:

Despite concerns expressed by many people about the public safety implications of granting gun licenses to the blind, the DPS spokesperson noted that “We are not aware of any instance in which a person with a significant visual impairment has used a firearm in a fashion that caused damage, injury, or death.”


This observation was echoed by Josh Hammen, Deputy Sheriff of Pocahontas County and President of the Iowa State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association. Speaking to us by phone, Hammen said he had not been made aware of any cases where a gun owner with a visual impairment had been involved in any firearms-related death or injury since 2011.

Therefore it is not a problem actually in need of being addressed.

 

It of course does no such thing. No state can ban either.

The Supreme Court has of course already ruled on abortion, so that’s not going anywhere unless you can amend the constitution. And there are no hurdles you can put in the second amendment. It precludes you from doing so.