Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of fact. If you think you cannot voluntarily contract away rights, then I suggest you try deserting the military or publishing trade secrets you have contracted not to reveal. See how far your freedom of the press or unimpeded travel gets you.
Try trespassing on a military base, onto an airplane or into the White House "bearing arms". You'll find out that while you may own and bear arms, you cannot do it there, or in many other locales, without permission. And, if you try, you'll find out that after being convicted by due process, you might never have the right to vote, move freely, associate with certain people, work for many employers or bear arms again, as part of your punishment. Assuming you put the weapon down slowly and back away carefully when arrested, that is.
You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other. Doing business includes the hiring of employees. Don't agree with the way private property and freedom of association works in the United States? Bear your guns elsewhere. I understand the Horn of Africa is a free-carry zone. Maybe someone there will be willing to hire you at gun point.
You want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
No, my solution is for the two parties to come to a private, non-governmental agreement. Your solution is to use force to impose your passage with arms. But if you grant yourself the indisputable power to go where you will armed, then don't whine when others use their right to bear arms to defend themselves from your undesired presence on their property.
"You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other." (LexBaird in Post 132)
So you are saying:
a. In the name of balance you might not object to the Bearing of Arms on your property even though the impact to you was negative in that your control of your property was diminished.
b. Property Rights do not automatically take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms
Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of fact. If you think you cannot voluntarily contract away rights, -- [snip the obvious]
Using the coerce-ment of a job to infringe on your employees right to carry also contravenes our constitutional principles.
You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.
Doing business includes the hiring of employees. Don't agree with the way private property and freedom of association works in the United States? Bear your guns elsewhere. I understand the Horn of Africa is a free-carry zone. Maybe someone there will be willing to hire you at gun point.
You can do your business elsewhere. I understand England loves gungrabbers.
You wrote that you want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
No, my solution is for the two parties to come to a private, non-governmental agreement.
We came to that compromise/agreement years ago; -- my vehicle is my property, parked on your lot while I work, -- and nothing in that vehicle concerns you.
-- Now you want to infringe upon that agreement for unknown reasons. [political reasons?]
Your solution is to use force to impose your passage with arms.
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
But if you grant yourself the indisputable power to go where you will armed, then don't whine when others use their right to bear arms to defend themselves from your undesired presence on their property.
Hype. -- You desire the presence of your employees on your property. -- Admit it. -- You simply 'hate' them having guns locked in their vehicles.
One cannot justify using force to take away another's rights simply in order to more easily exercise their own.
-- The exercise of your parking lot property rights do not give license to violate another's right to carry in their vehicle. As Will Rogers famously said [paraphrased], -- 'Your right to ban guns ends at my tires'