[jonestown]

No, this day is just fine, --- seeing that you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.
jones

---

Modernman wrote:
I have never said nor implied that.

---

Dozens of your posts here 'imply' otherwise. -- As anyone can read.
726 jones

---

Then the problem is on your end in your reading comprehension. I am a member of the NRA, own firearms and believe that individuals have the RKBA.

---

I read fine.
You've made it quite evident, - you disagree that our individual RKBA's does not apply to an employees vehicle in company provided parking.
Thus, you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.

[Modernman]

You've made it quite evident, - you disagree that our individual RKBA's does not apply to an employees vehicle in company provided parking.

Double negatives aside, that's correct.

Thus, you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.

This conclusion does not follow from your first statement. A refresher course in logic might be in order.

[NittanyLion]

Your viewpoints on this thread are astonishing, given the fact that your hempage states:

(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.

I guess that whole protecting the right and control of private property only applies to your own property, huh?