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

If the right wing will say the 2A is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then the city can say the 2A is "A militia being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed" Both technically equally as true as the other

 

Dude, I'm guessing you're young and still learning, but the RW can say whatever **** they like, but it's the Supreme Court which determines what the Constitution means.

Here, let me help you learn more: https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/role-supreme-court/
The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution....

 

The RW supreme courts have always made things worse, the LW supreme courts have always expanded liberty and freedom. So yeah for now the SC will conveniently forget the first half of the 2A but when the LW eventually gains control again then the 2A will no longer protect individual rights.

 

Dude, there's only one Supreme Court. Obviously you and I each have a different view of reality so there's no further point in discussing this with you. Good luck with your dreamland.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

The LW gave you maranda rights, the right gave you Citizens United

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

It might be hypothetically possible (and even then, only to a degree) in a State that allows landlords to restrict possession of firearms as a term of the lease. However, that would require you (or whomever) to maintain ownership of every property, and to hope and pray the State never changed that law. Additionally, areas (like say roads, parks, etc) where it's otherwise legal for a permitted person to carry cannot be restricted by a lease on a residence. Also, in some states "firearms prohibited" signs are legally meaningless. Finally, as long as a carrier is discrete, there's no way to know, and while a landlord does have a right to enter a tenant's property for limited specific purposes, this does not include any sort of general search, nor can you force them to open drawers or safes for inspection.

 

Do I need to say more? The LW has always sided with the people, the RW has always sided with the rich or powerful.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat your unsupportable nonsense, it remains unsupportable nonsense.

 

Name one right granted by the RW SC

 

The Court doesn't grant rights.

What happened to the "t"?

 

Agreed but you are posting to a person who has openly advocated depriving Americans of their First, Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

If someone advocated walling in group of Americans, censoring all information inside the Wall, ruling with an authoritarian iron fist and locking up anyone who disagreed, wouldn't the first word come to mind be "cult"?

 

What T?

 

Doesn't work out too well for the people in Democrat controlled districts.

 

F

First, in regard to hate, you indicated you hate this country.

Second, your assessment of a coming Constitutional crisis precipitating a failure of the Constitution, is unsupportable nonsense and absence any logic and any historic understanding.

Third, as for your plan for governance in the US, any semblance of the British model was long ago rejected and never in history since the adoption of the Constituion as a framework for governing has any majority, or even substantive minority argued for a rejection of the Constitution with the exception of those states that seceded from the Union during the Civil War over the issue of slavery and even then, they adopted a Constitution that was almost word for word copied from the US Constitution with added provisions to protect the institution of slavery. The current political divide in the US may be acrimonius, but other than some on the left suggesting its amendment,Mt here are no great calls for it’s outright rejection. Then too, many, including most outside the US have no idea of what constitutes a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ which is not a failure of the Constitution or a call to arms, rather is a call to excersize remedies for clarification by the provisions already defined in the Constitution. The majority of people in the US tend to reject the any hysteria generated by the extremes in this country, extremes that make for profitable press, and, in your case, ignorance based hope that the US is on the brink of collapse.

 

The crisis is when separate sovergnty with double jepordy is over turned and Trump is effectively immune from production allowing him to do anything he wants with his pardon.

The case currently in the supreme Court.

Canada, AU and NZ plus UK are far more stable than the US

 

Miranda was not a gift of the LW, it was a SCOTUS clarification of based on the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, something that has happened frequently throughout US history and was settled in accordance to Constituional design. The Citizen United was also settled by the same means and prescribe process, and the CU’s attempts to gain a means of leverage over the Dems is not much different than other such machinations of opposing parties that have adjudicated before the Courts, not unlike the long attempts by the Dems to siphon off funds from unions that sought to require all employees to pay fees regardless of whether they were union members or not; the court ruled in favor of ‘the right to work’ advocates striking down the sweetheart arrangements between the Dem Party and unions.
As far as the LW being for the people, the LW is driven by self enriching cake eating elites that only seek to perpetuate government dependency and use the carrot of government directed redistribution of crumbs to draw votes to maintain their power. BTW, not unlike that exhibited in the North of Ireland.

 

Canada, AU, NZ and the UK wouldn’t exist without the US.

 

Pray tell how exactly will these efforts at misinformation be conducted? What will stop individuals within this hypothetical city from researching the matter online through the use of google or other search engines, and finding out for themselves what the united state supreme court has actually stated to be the case?

 

Bear in mind that Citizens United pertained to the united states federal government attempting to prohibit the political speech of private citizens.

 

In the united states, rights are not granted by either the united state constitution, the federal or state governments, or the united state supreme court. They are merely recognized as existing and eventually codified into law.

 

Lest you forget history, it was the Dem party that resisted emancipation, from which the KKK arose and resisted civil rights in the 60’s. Republicans backed an end to slavery to the point of a civil war, the GOP that supported emancipation and the the 13th Amendment and pushed the Civil Rights agenda forward in the 60’s.

 

Did I say GOP no I said Right wing. Regardless of party. Also they switched.

 

You’ve been making incorrect assumptions, but do go on and posit what ‘switched’ means. I figure your answer will be predictable....and, again, wrong. Don’t believe every thing you read in the liberal media.