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

Only those made to kill

 

Why do you lie to yourself?

 

You do understand that the guns do not act by themselves don't you?

You do realize that a child traveling to or from school is much more likely to be abducted by a pervert than they are to be killed by an active shooter?

 

Like I said try to enter the white house of halls of congress with open carry in protest. See how well that works

 

A child is 35x more likely to die on a school bus than in a school shooting.

 

You do realize how rediculious it is to let everyone have access to a gun until they do something bad with it.

What is so wrong about having to prove that you are trust worthy with a gun before getting one. People wonder why the rest of the west laughs at us.

 

Why do you lie to yourself?

 

Guns, when used as intended in legal activity, very rarely are involved in the death of a human.

Cars, when used as intended in legal activity, are involved in the deaths of many people on a daily basis.

 

Why do you lie to yourself?
Why can't you spell?

 

Do you know how many guns there are in America? Do you have any idea what a small percentage of those guns are involved in murder?

 

How can the US have the same number of gun death in one year as the UK in 100 years? Guns are a problem and we should do what AU did.

 

It's comparing apples to pears.

 

What does rediculious mean?

There is no way to prove yourself trustworthy. You can only be proven untrustworthy.

 

Australia doesn't have a Constitutional guarantee for the right to keep and bear arms.

Did you know during WWII private citizens in the US sent personal firearms to the UK to help protect people there from German invasion?

 

He doesn't care about his audience. People who frequently misspell in this day of spell-check are just showing their contempt for their readers.

 

Why do you lie to yourself?

 

The fact he lies to himself show his contempt for... him?

 

Don't be rediculious. You no wat is meens.

 

Well, don't be too harsh on him. He's doing a good job advocating for the pro-gun side by showing how silly the anti-gun side is.

 

And he has to lie to himself to do it.

 

Which government buildings? Cite such.

Even if such was a blanket standard that applied uniformly over every physical structure that may count as a government building to one extent or another, it would not matter pertaining to this discussion, as what is being proposed on the part of yourself is not a government building.

 

The united states constitution does not allow for such a level of prior restraint on the private exercising of constitutional rights. The courts have long held this to be the case, the legal precedent exists, and any effort made to bypass such a standard is quickly and easily shut down.[/QUOTE]

Why do you care so much about how the rest of the world sees the united states? You do nothing but bemoan your own country and lament the desire to flee it at the first available opportunity for a superior nation in search of sanctuary from violence.

 

Was there ever a point in the history of the two countries where such has not always been the case? If so, then point it out. Otherwise there is no statement on the part of yourself.

The nation of Australia still possesses the types of firearms most commonly used in mass shootings, and they are still available to the public. Therefore nothing of significance has actually changed. The public has simply been fooled into believing such.

 

And knives are the weapon of choice in 30% of homicides in the UK and where used in 40,000 offences in the UK, take away firearms and the criminals will sill keep on killing.

Now the UK is looking at banning knives, proving once again the banners are, as they always been, incorrect in their misguided efforts in trying to lower deaths and crime, these fools, the banners, continually get it wrong by blaming an object for a human problem.

 

Private Policing Powers Act

1. All private security personnel shall have the power to enforce and arrest any person on their property who is in violation of any rule.

• The security person shall be allowed to bring the suspect to the local court on account of felony trespassing with a maximum sentence of 1 year in prison.
• All the proof that shall be needed is camera evidence that they were in violation of said rule on property.

• Both security and police persons shall lose sovereign immunity and be subject to personal lawsuits for any violation of rights not necessary for the apprehension of the suspect.
• Tax payer money will no longer be used to help pay for police lawsuits or cases.

​