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

That could work. But you can't get big instantaneously, and when an adjacent city sees you begin to grow, the legal eyes for the city will be upon you, the politicians wanting a share of that growth, and to have control over more land.

They would like their city's name over your land, and to build a bigger city hall.

 

What ducking state is this where the city can annex at will LOL

 

And rap music too.

 

Or anywhere.

 

I think you will find that the courts favor an existing city in any state, because the laws favor an existing city, and annexations are fought out in court.

 

“Facebook post says” lmfao

 

Most reliable source the left has posted in years guy in the pub told me so

 

There's 50 of them.

 

Just to stop NRA gun crusaders from demanding a gun, they can have one if they can, memorize and say the constitution from start to finish and all the amendments with out pausing to think.

Problem solved. No one is doing that and the city can say it has a "statute allowing guns"

 

People like you are why we added the 2nd Amendment.

 

Actually it was so that states could create standing armies and the federal would not need a national army since people were against that. It took till 2008 for people to think differently!

 

... standing armies which the Constitution specifically prohibits states from raising...

... which the Constitution specifically gave Congress the power to create.

Every time you swing, you miss.

 

People who live in the boonies of sparsely populated states want to be left alone and not interfered with, and they will leave you alone if you leave them alone.

But politicians are the same everywhere. They want to get in your business. So you wouldn't want to get too big, too visible, too prosperous, and too appealing.

 

It is the exact opposite, it prohibited congress from creating a standing army but allowed the states to have militias

 

Exactly.

Gun control advocates aren't against guns, they're just against anyone but the state having them to control the populace.

That always works out well.

 

It would have to be completely voluntary because owning a private city doesn't entitle you to violate people's constitutional rights.

That being said, your little gun-free utopia wouldn't be a utopia for long. Once criminals find out the entire populace of your town has disarmed itself they will prey on you like wolves on sheep and you'll die like cattle.

 

You cannot be more wrong. Nowhere does the 2nd do either.

 

That's their loss. We have the best system of higher education in the world.

 

No, it was so that "the People" could defend themselves however necessary, be it at the individual or any higher level up to and including any federal standing army.

 

Only if suicides are counted.

 

Don Quixote, you do have a good imagination.

 

All that effort to implement serfdom.

 

Are you really that much of a totalitarian? Will you require the peasants to bow down before the "Keshi" crown?

 

If someone is going to for no good reason remove a city that people moved to for safety reasons and I outnumber their population and have the ability to control the votes then yes. I will make life hell for them until they apply for us to be unannexed and never do that again.

 

So, yes, you are that much of a totalitarian. I can't imagine being governed by a "crown" that wants to make political opponents miserable. So will you also be executing people for not bowing low enough?