Real-world sensitivities and game names

[thejeff]

But that "100% gun free neighborhood" argument breaks down. If it can be mandated only if everyone agrees, then that's no mandate, that's just no one living there owning a gun. If one person wants to move in and have a gun then suddenly all the neighbors don't agree and it's no longer 100% gun free.
From a more legal point of view, nothing in US law (or any other country I know of) requires 100% approval. So every law imposes on someone.

And it doesn't scale. Neighborhood is vaguely defined. If you define a large enough area then you'll never find one where everyone wants to be gun-free. If you use a small enough scale everyone who wants to lives in a gun-free area, even if it's just their own house.
And easy access to guns in one area, makes it easier for criminals to get weapons for use in the gun-free area.

More largely, you can't divorce gun control from violent crime. Those pro-control will say violent crime often uses guns and thus reducing access is a way to reduce violent crime. Those opposed to gun control often say armed citizens reduce violent crime.

[JimMorrison]

thejeff said:
But that "100% gun free neighborhood" argument breaks down. If it can be mandated only if everyone agrees, then that's no mandate, that's just no one living there owning a gun. If one person wants to move in and have a gun then suddenly all the neighbors don't agree and it's no longer 100% gun free.
From a more legal point of view, nothing in US law (or any other country I know of) requires 100% approval. So every law imposes on someone.

I'm not talking about 100% agreement per se - but jurisdiction. Very few things should be regulated beyond city limits - even fewer across state lines.

If your city decides to be firearm free, then so be it, I won't try to stop you. If I owned a gun (and I likely never will, personally), then obviously I wouldn't want to live there, and if I DID choose to live there, I'd willingly give up my weapon, or I'd be moving to a jail cell instead of that nice condo I had my eye on.


As it stands, since we try to homogenize freedom, we instead dilute and adulterate it with conflicting points of view. If we truly want to prosper, then we need to let people grow up, on their own terms, and make their own rules. As long as they aren't hurting people, then what is the problem? What they do is not the business of someone 1000 miles away, so long as no one's liberties are threatened. That's the thing, any form of overarching "control" on a national level, is merely a pre-emptive restriction of civil liberty. And unfortunately, bringing it back to the gun control point (since Chris went there ), quite possibly an attempt to control people, more than any little thing that is made the issue.

[chrispedersen]

[quote]
JimMorrison said:

thejeff said:
If your city decides to be firearm free, then so be it, I won't try to stop you. If I owned a gun (and I likely never will, personally), then obviously I wouldn't want to live there, and if I DID choose to live there, I'd willingly give up my weapon, or I'd be moving to a jail cell instead of that nice condo I had my eye on.

But thats the whole point Jim. The desire to live in a gun free environment does NOT trump the right to bear arms.

And no city has the right to remove a right that was enshrined in the bill of rights.