Never heard of the "Blue Laws", huh?
As to your gun-totin' Wild West fantasy, bear in mind that some of these towns required visitors to check their guns at the Sheriff's office. So much for "everybody wears guns".
But, we do digress, don't we? And, my oh my, you're getting way behind in your answers to me.
In your post #240, you said, "Before I address your other points ...". Well, now it's time.
Any comments on my post #242 to you?
Plus, I insist on an answer to my post #251 to you. What did you mean by, "As an aside, there is something about the use of that phrase that just doesn't rub well. I know what it is, as do all free men, but will let it pass for now"?
Okay, the above is the context of your phrase.
My question is, who would do the allowing? The state, as I assumed you were referring to as the authority to allow the proprietor to make the choice, or the proprietor, who would allow himself to make that choice?
Did I assume incorrectly that you were referring to the state? If so, I withdraw my comment. It's moot. Let's move on.
If that is your considered response to my specific question, it reveals much.
And again, if that is your considered response, it reveals much.
For anyone following this conversation, the above relates to Mr. Paulsen's reply # 235, quoted below:
"As per the U.S. Constitution, people have certain unalienable rights which cannot be ceded or taken away. These would include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property ownership as examples."
Let me start by saying that if I am not HAPPY, it's because my LIBERTY was taken away from me by the state who decided my LIFE was not worth as much as a criminal's.
If I am prevented from protecting my own life with superior force, then liberty is but a transient word with little meaning and happiness can only be found in heaven. If that be the case, our constitution and the 'doctrine' of unalienable rights have no practical application in the real world and are not worth the paper they are written on.
But that is NOT the case, contrary to what some statists and tyranny-leaning despots would have you believe -- but for some reason, in their wiley ways they do give lip service to the constitution and keep up the facade of 'protecting' it.
In that our rights are unalienable/inalienable as coming from God and/or by virtue of birth, depending on your belief system, the environment to exercise those rights must be created and maintained by man. That is what the 'great experiment' is all about.
For the first time in human history, a large group of subjects found themselves one morning without a king or ruler and took the only course available to survive. They assumed the status as monarchs of themselves, individually, and immediately contracted with other 'monarchs' for their mutual protection.
This was something new to the human race. Something only kings enjoyed heretofore. It was going to take a long time to be able to cope with and learn the meaning of freedom and to begin practicing self-control, self-reliance and pesonal responsibility -- and to agree with each other, by contract, the limits of their freedom.
What our history has recorded since the American Revolution shows the efforts, gains and losses we have made to keep the idea and ideal of self-government alive.
It is sad testimony I must give right now, as it is evident that the next generation of monarchs will be few and far between and will be but a fading memory -- as will the hopes and dreams of all past and present free men who have striven to preserve the inheritance of all Citizens. An inheritance which was comprised of the awareness of unalienable rights and the power to practice those rights and perpetuate the ideals of freedom under the rule of law.
A rule of law which was destroyed in the state where liberty was founded, strangely enough.
An opinion, of course, but one that remains to be tested.
But then, I 'babble.'