To: aragorn
"If a homeowner gun owner wanted a guarantee that the hill would remain as is to keep his gun in the car, and park his car on the parking lot adjacent to his place of work, he could have bought the hill parking lot. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit."
41 posted on
12/30/2004 3:02:14 PM PST by
Luis Gonzalez
(Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis,
After several days of introspection and reflection (not necessarily of your arguments, but) of your bottom line, and of what *I* believe, I find that integrity forces me to post this publicly (since my other arguments have been posted thusly):
You are correct. I have no rights on your property.
Therefor, I must also conclude that the Oklahoma law we have been sparring about is indeed a misguided piece of legislation.
FRegards,
aragorn
45 posted on
12/30/2004 5:15:12 PM PST by
aragorn
(Tag line? What tag line?)
To: Luis Gonzalez
"If a gun owner wanted to keep his gun in the car, and park his car on the parking lot adjacent to his place of work, he could have bought the parking lot.
That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit."
41 Luis Gonzalez
Who is being "deprived" of what; --
-- when an employer is told that he can't infringe on his employees right to carry arm's in their parked vehicles?
55 posted on
12/31/2004 9:18:08 AM PST by
jonestown
( Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance at all. Jonestown, TX)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson