Replies

Your position advocates and incremental approach to the finality of a total gun ban.

Not in the least. I’m saying my property rights over my own property are more valuable than someone else’s rights to trespass on my property. This means that if I don’t want people - for any reason whatsoever - to be on my property, I have that right. Even if it is a piece of property that is accessible to the public.

i.e. this is really not about gun rights at all. It’s about property rights. “guns” just happens to be the way this particular person is violating a private property owner’s rights.

And if you want to carry a gun on someone’s property, just conceal carry. If they don’t want you to even do that, well, once they see the gun, they can ask you to leave. Their rule does not carry the force of law. The law would only be involved if, after being asked to leave, you refuse. And at that point it is no longer about the gun. It is about trespassing - a completely different issue.

This is all very simple, because it is all binary.

What mucks it up is this: To carry my thinking to it’s logical conclusion, it means that I could own a store and refuse to allow people of one race or another on my property, or I could have a gym that is “women only”.

And I could, according to the constitution. And if it was offensive to the local culture, I’d go out of business.

Remember, what made Jim Crow bad was that it was not private property owners deciding to segregate racially. It was THE LAW. It was the government requiring it - even if the business owner did not want to segregate.

This country was established on the rights of the individual, and that foundation was built on a deeper foundation of individual property rights.