Replies

I'm demanding my equal property Rights. Is that such an onerous thing? As long as my property does not infringe on his property, he has no claim. Just as I have no call to have someone move their car parked on the public street in front of my house. In my driveway, that is one thing, denying me equal access to my property is the same. What is in my car in no way affects my employer. Ergo, he can HAVE NO CLAIM. Period. This isn't rocket science here. His property. My property. The division line is where the rubber meets the tarmac.

Luis has proved over several threads to be no fan of Second Amendment Rights. If he's a patriot, then I'm a small mouthed bass. I couldn't care if he's your brother in law.

Wrong is wrong. My property, your property. Why are you guys having so much trouble understanding something I can easily explain to a three year old?

DC< when you parked your car on his property...you infringed onto his property. That's what is simple here.

If he is okay with that, then no problem. But if he has established his own rules regarding the same, then there is a problem when you violate those rules. You still have your property rights...you can just exercise them OFF his property. Otherwise, you are then in tresspass, with your car, on his property, the moment you violate the stipulations he places on you parking your car, with all that is in it, on his property.

We're not talking to three year olds here, we're talking as adults. You're property is taking up space on his property...infringing it. If you don't like the rule sof his property space...move it. Plain and simple.

And Jonestown, I saw your post from E.T. Benson. That is an excellent essay.

I knew him personally. He would take great exception to your side of this discussion. He was an avid supporter of property rights, as well as the second amendment. I take a good deal of my own position from him and his teachings. He would be very forthright in his position that a property owner had the right to stipulate what went on on his proerty and had the right to evict anyone who willingly violated those rules and thus proved himself disrespectful of the basic moral respect for the property rights of others.

This does not mean that people must be disarmed, or that the RKBA is injured. It just means in a free society that you have a choice to make. Either respect the other's wishes and go elsewhere, or violate those wishes and be willing to take responsibility when you do...like being fired, or being towed away.

Again...and finally (because my eyelids are down around my shoes at this point), Good night.