The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.
Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.
Your rights end where mine begin. -72-
Luis Gonzalez argued recently:
--- we govern according to what the Constitution says.
It says that Amendments apply to the States, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Luis, Article VI goes on to say that all officials "-- shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; --"
Do you disagree with this principle?
Have you ever served in any official capacity, been a member of the armed forces, or a naturalized citizen?
-- All of us have sworn that oath.. -- Would you refuse on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?
That Constitution does not give you the right to violate my rights as a property owner, and my right as an individual to my property and my person is as inviolate as your right to be protected from the government disallowing you to bear arms.
We are discussing individual liberties here.
The right of the individual who owns the parking lot, and the right of the individual who owns the gun.
When are the individual rights of all best served?
Are they better served when the individual who owns the property makes the free decision not to allow guns in his property, and the individual who owns the gun makes the decision to not enter the property without his gun, or are individual rights better served when the many (those not owning that parking lot) use the force of government to violate the individual rights of the few (parking lot owners)?
You best defend that Constitution when you disallow the government from violating the individual rights of the citizens, not when you facilitate the violation of those rights by the many acting in concert with the government.
Luis and others apparently believe that men have no Rights except those granted by the state (i.e, "Constitutional Rights"), and no man's Rights can be violated by someone other than an agent of the state.
I believe that men have many Rights, and that only a few of them are enumerated in our Constitution. As Jefferson, stated, governments are instituted by men to secure these Rights. If a foreign government is attempting to steal your land, the government has the power and the obligation to stop it. If another citizen is attempting to kill you, the government has the power and obligation to stop it. If another entity, such as a corporation, is attempting to dictate your vote or control what you have in your vehicle, the goverment again has the power and obligation to stop it.
Many people forget that the colonists rebelled not only against the British crown, but also British corporations, such as the East India Tea Company. (I suppose in the mind of some folks, that makes Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson "socialists").
Ultimately, Rights are something that you are willing to fight for and die for, which many men have. Free speech, jury trials, Right to bear arms, and the like all meet this criteria. Men have died for and killed for these concepts. How many men do you know that have fought for the "right" for a multinational corporation to conduct Soviet-style searches through their workers privately owned vehicles? To suggest that this is a "right" is absurd and a perversion.
As to property rights, these should be held highly in a Free society. However, I cannot use my property to infringe upon the Rights of other citizens. I can't play music at 3:00 AM that disturbs my neighbors even though it's *my* property, since that infringes upon their Right to peace and quiet (yes, they have that Right, even though it is not in the Constitution).
I do not have the "right" to allow the Russian Air Force to build an airstrip on my property since the presence of said airbase would threaten the Rights of my fellow citizens, even though it's *my* property.
Additional examples are legion, but the point here is that you cannot use your property to deprive other citizens of their Rights. Corporations should not be able to use their property to deprive citizens of their Right to self-defense, their right to be secure in their possessions, and their right to keep and bear arms.
Luis and others apparently believe that private property CAN be used to infringe upon the Rights of other people.
Finally, we get to contract law. Contract law should NOT be absolute. Contracts should be "null and void" whenever fraud is involved, or whenever force is used or implied, or under duress, and so on. Fortunately, existing law recognizes this fact most of the time. I think Luis might even agree with me on this one.
Delving further, we arrive at two more basic questions: "can a man surrender his Rights via a contract?" and "even if a man can morally surrender his Rights via a contract, does the state (whos primary purpose is to defend individual Rights) have an obligation to prevent such contracts from occurring?"
Dealing with the former question, I absolutely believe the answer to this question is "no". Luis probably disagrees. Even if you sign a contract saying you surrender the "right to self defense", this contract is NULL and VOID. Same with contracts involving slavery. Or contracts involving the surrender of your arms. You can't sign away your Liberties, and anyone, such as an anti-gun corporation, that asks you to is an enemy of Liberty.
The next question is should the state recognize such contracts? Again, my answer is "no". Since the state is charged with protecting individual Rights, does it not have a duty to nullify contracts that result in one side giving up their basic Rights? Imagine the society that would exist if in order to feed his family, a man was forced to sign a contract detailing whom he would vote for, how he would spend his money, what possessions he was "allowed" to keep in his car, and so on. It would be a quasi-feudal society, which is the antithesis of a Free Republic based on individual Rights.
You're back!
Thank the stars, my friend!