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

Consider leaving. I'm sure they'd love to have more sheep.

 

It's funny how we still allow the "Tories" to reside here.

 

It's one of the reasons his LW utopia won't work: human nature. He might get by with it for one generation by selecting sheepish, ignorant and scared people who will do whatever they are told, but that's no guarantee that the next generation will do the same. In our own society we have plenty of Tories AKA Authoritarians who believe the Federal government should dictate what everyone should think, do and believe. They exist on both the Left and Right Wing sides.

 

Tories are conservative labour is liberal

 

Tories bow down to authoritarian rule which is exactly what you are proposing. Additionally, what Yabber was referring to, were the American colonialists who were Tories and were against revolting against the King and his Redcoats. You've advocated stripping people of their Constitutional rights and submitting to authoritarian rule. It doesn't matter if you mean to set yourself up as King or establish a Totalitarian Socialist Politburo, the results are the same: subjugation of "We, the People".

On the side, I've wondered to myself if you are an example of Poe's Law or just very young, say teens to early 20s. I'm guessing the latter is more likely.

 

The Tories I speak of were the contemporaries that expressed loyalty to the King.

 

So Canada lol. Made the better choice for their 6th gen grand children.

 

We want EU socialism. You know real socialism.

 

We? Then you plan on locking them down behind walls and cutting off any information not sanctioned by yourself...as you've posted previously. It'd good to be idealistic when you're young, but it's foolish to do so when over 40.

 

what, so you are not able to enforce what you allow in your own house? I sure can......

your trying to say sense a home owner can't prevent a criminal from stealing his stuff, he should not have any rules against stealing stuff in his house?

rules can be violated, doesn't mean you can not have them

how about if you do not feel safe without a gun, you do not go to people homes that do not allow guns, respect their wishes and go somewhere else where guns are allowed and you feel safe

 

Sorry, that's a misrepresentation. Of course we should have laws against those who seek to harm others. OTOH, we should also understand that defense begins at home and spreads outward to our society, not inward from society downwards to the home.

In short, it's better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

The united states federal government, however, can indeed bring suit against a city. Or a resident of this proposed city could bring suit against the city via the courts within the state it is stationed, or rely on the circuit and appeals courts for the entire territory.

 

The posts presented on the part of yourself throughout the discussion indicate otherwise, especially with regard to the brainwashing and deliberate misinformation that would be conducted.

 

Meaning they would easily be overpowered and outmatched by a suspect who is both armed and violent. Without firearms the entire police force of this proposed city would be helpless to do anything against a single individual armed with even a machete.

 

It is more a noting that simply because a property owner tries to implement a decree, that does not actually amount to anything. If a property owner declares no firearms may be on their property, but they do not make a habit of searching everyone and everything that comes onto their property, and does not possess metal detectors at every entrance and exit, their policy carries no actual weight since it will be ignored by everyone.

Will those with malicious intents respect the wishes of those who do not wish for firearms to be on their property?

Is there a different standard when the private property is not only open to the public, but is a vital part of the community where everyone must congregate, such as a grocery store?

 

You must first bring a case to the local court. Then you can appeal if they rule against you. You can send a letter directly to the supreme Court but it's not likely they will take the case.

Then there is of course the fact that if you move to an area to break a law just to sue you can get thrown out because you went out of reasonable way to get a law struck down in a jurisdiction you do not live in. Which is what the 11A was passed to protect against.

 

Why are you worried at all except due to media sensationalism? Most "gun deaths" in the US are suicides. Firearms-related homicides have dipped since the peak in the 1990s. You're literally afraid of nothing.

More die by drunken driving every year than firearms homicides, but you're not running around worried about being run over by a drunkard. Think about it.

 

wow, where did I say I was worried, I was stating that the poster could not set up a city that violated our 2nd Amendment rights

if he wanted a place that banned guns, it would have to be on private land

why does my supporting his right to not allow guns on his private land translate to I am against the 2nd amendment?

I also do not support a group of guys walking in to bank carrying assault weapons wearing ski masks

but I still support everyone's right to own a gun... even ex-felons

I believe home owners have a right to decide what is allowed on their property....

 

I hate drunks to #BringBack18

 

You understand there is a right to keep and bear arms NOT a right to keep and bear booze?

If "privatizing" meant you could do what you want, then those businesses in Alabama circa 1968 could have legally kept out blacks. They can't.

 

doesn't mater if I agree with him, if it's his property, it's his choice to try or not.. not mine

if I do not feel safe on his property, I wont go there

 

there is a right to bear arms, but there are places your not allowed to carry those arms... airplanes, court rooms, peoples property that do not allow them... ect....

the republicans convention did not allow guns if I recall

how about this NRA event

"No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence"

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...convention-speech-by-president-vice-president

 

And that has nothing to do with building an entire city and deciding you can play dictator and ignore federal law. Do you understand the difference?

 

as I said, you could not build a entire city and ban guns, you can ONLY do it on your private property.... that was my point... we agree

 

Cities are subject to state and federal law. But your phobia of firearms is noted.