(Freeper Fire Mission!!!) Should folks with CCW permits be allowed to carry their weapons at work?

Do you have a right to be on my property? Yes or No

Do you have a right to stay if I tell you that I want you to leave? Yes or No

Must I have a good reason that you agree with for telling you to stay off or leave? Yes or No.

If your answers are anything other than No, No, and No, then you have no basic understanding of or appreciation for property rights, and I'm through with you.

If you answered No to all of the above and still want to maintain that you have a right to go somewhere under conditions wherein you are not welcome, then you are intellectually dishonest and tyrannical.

You nor anyone else will be forcing your desires on me on my property. As you are not a reasonable person, I would specifically not allow you to come onto my property armed, as I would not trust your judgment. Other people may be armed or not as I decide. Don't like that decision? Tough you don't get a say in the matter.

And again, or in your parlance *AGAIN*, conditions are conditional not dic tats. I cannot force you to disarm, I can only force you to leave. And that, believe me, I can force you to do.

Yes, they should. 714 67%
No, they shouldn’t. 356 33%

Take your meds and get back to me when they’ve had time to take effect. You are arguing up is down and black is white.

Simply put, stay off my property. I don’t even need to give you a reason.

>Do you have a right to be on my property? Yes or No

Generally no; HOWEVER, that might actually be dependent on some other [legal] condition; such as if I am renting living or storage space from you.

>Do you have a right to stay if I tell you that I want you to leave? Yes or No

See the above; some states have laws which give renters the right to challenge an eviction OR that give a time-limit in order for the tenant to move.

>Must I have a good reason that you agree with for telling you to stay off or leave? Yes or No.

No, you are free to do what you want... but you willfully miss the point that such actions might be illegal.

>If you answered No to all of the above and still want to maintain that you have a right to go somewhere under conditions wherein you are not welcome, then you are intellectually dishonest and tyrannical.

I believe I answered correctly.

As you are not a reasonable person, I would specifically not allow you to come onto my property armed, as I would not trust your judgment. Other people may be armed or not as I decide. Don't like that decision?

Interesting that you consider the insistence that you agree to a positive obligation to provide for my safety should I accept your condition to enter your property to qualify me as "not a reasonable person." Also interesting that pointing out what the law says qualifies me as "not a reasonable person."

When you accept a condition, responsibility then rests with you. I give you an option and you (as an adult) get to decide whether it is right for you. That's who the big boy world works.

What qualifies you as unreasonable is your unwillingness to accept other people's property rights.

As for you weaseling vis a vis "rental agreements" you make my point. Rental agreements are nothing but a legal contract bases on a list of conditions. I rent out two properties and my tenants must remain within the confines of the contract (conditions) if they wish to stay on the property.

Please tell me that you do not fancy yourself knowlegable in law, and yet had the fact that a lease is nothing but a conditional arrangement, escape you.

I have already addressed illegal conditions, but if you understand natural rights at all then you must understand that the state does not give me my propery rights, thus it cannot take them away. Making an abridgment of rights a law, doesn't make it OK. The USSR had tons of laws precluding the free excercise of rights.

In fact, it is very difficult to come up with an illegal condition of entry, as the person being offered the condition can always refuse it, by not entering.

You have never addressed the direct point that all of your other rights are open for abridgment on a regular basis as a condition of entry, and I'm certain that you have a long list of conditions that you put on your visitors (which restricts their free actions), whether it is stated or not.

It is unclear how any person who is free to leave at any time, can claim that they were forced to give something up.

>>Interesting that you consider the insistence that you agree to a positive obligation to provide for my safety should I accept your condition to enter your property to qualify me as “not a reasonable person.” Also interesting that pointing out what the law says qualifies me as “not a reasonable person.”
>
>When you accept a condition, responsibility then rests with you. I give you an option and you (as an adult) get to decide whether it is right for you. That’s who the big boy world works.

And you yourself rejected the counter-agreement that should I give up my being armed as a condition of entering your property that you assume responsibility for my bodily safety. Let me put it another way:

Let’s say that you did indeed extend a conditional invitation onto your property with the one condition being that I be unarmed; would you then be willing to sign a legally binding contract stating that you are legally and financially responsible for my safety while on your property?

>I have already addressed illegal conditions,

No you haven’t; you have in two places on this thread stated that:
a) even illegal conditions are legitimate, (Post 53: “How about this “rule”: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.”)
and
b) any illegal condition is null and void. (Post 76: “You cannot solicit people to commit illegal acts as a condition of entry, such as bringing drugs.”)

That, my friend, is a contradiction.

Let’s say that you did indeed extend a conditional invitation onto your property with the one condition being that I be unarmed; would you then be willing to sign a legally binding contract stating that you are legally and financially responsible for my safety while on your property?

Ah, now you are entering the realm of counter-conditions, which is all well and good in a free society. Would I sign such a agreement? No, but then I never wanted you on my property to begin with. But I infer that you are asking whether it is reasonable for you to ask your employer to sign such a conditional contract, to which I would say, if you think its reasonable then it is defacto reasonable. I say this because I believe that it is you, not anyone else, that decides your conditions, and likewise, your employer, no you, that decides his. Compromise is always a possibility.

The purported contradiction you laid out is based on some heavy and willful parsing of my posts.

>The purported contradiction you laid out is based on some heavy and willful parsing of my posts.

They are direct quotes.

They are direct quotes.

Yes, that is the agreed upon definition of parsing someones words. You take direct quotes out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. Honestly, do you own a dictionary?

As you keep having trouble with the meaning of commonly accepted English words and terminology, yet are fast to grab hold of semantics to bolster your point, I'm going to guess that you are currently in higher education or a recent graduate. There is nothing like a little bit of knowledge to bring a fool to full bloom.

Getting back to the subject, when a 90 pound woman places a condition of entry on a 300 pound repair man, that he not be armed when he enters her house (because she is still a bit traumatized by being raped and wants to maintain her advantage on her property at all times by being the only one with a gun), what would you propose that the all powerful state do to punish her great offense? Prison, fine, both? Lord knows, next she will be putting up "No Swimming" signs.

I'm very curious what punishment you will hand out for those who treat their property as if it were theirs to do with as they please. You certainly don't want to live in a state where people can just abridge YOUR rights at their home, right?

FYI, the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not individuals. Any law to the contrary is wrong. If I only want green eyed people that worship toads to visit my house, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Ending Jim Crow in government was a fantastic move forward. Applying anti-discrimination laws to individual businesses was a misguided move. What a man wants to do at his lunch counter is his business, per natural law.

As you keep having trouble with the meaning of commonly accepted English words and terminology, yet are fast to grab hold of semantics to bolster your point, I'm going to guess that you are currently in higher education or a recent graduate. There is nothing like a little bit of knowledge to bring a fool to full bloom.

I am a recent graduate; in fact your life may one day literally be in my hands as I am desirous to get a job working with the programming language Ada --which is commonly used in mission-/safety-critical software, like air traffic control, medical devices, nuclear reactors, military weapons-- so it's a DAMN GOOD THING that I am "fast to grab hold of semantics."

In such a job it is IMPERATIVE that one consider the exceptional-circumstances. (i.e. things like your conditionals being illegal/invalid.)

I'm very curious what punishment you will hand out for those who treat their property as if it were theirs to do with as they please.

None; I never claimed that it wasn't. What I did claim was that some of your conditions might be immoral or illegal.

You certainly don't want to live in a state where people can just abridge YOUR rights at their home, right?

Where did I *EVER* say that you had no right to use force to remove me from your property [in the case of trespass]? Even lethally.
I have no problem with that.

FYI, the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not individuals.

True; however there are "grey areas" where something might be applicable: consider private security guards / police organizations... I sure as hell don't want them exempt from 4th Amendment restrictions simply because they aren't "government entities." {If they were there is little doubt in my mind that the government could employ such a "private force" in order to circumvent Constitutional restrictions; before you say that doing so would be illegitimate (and I agree there) consider the case of tax-laws: the supreme court has ruled that the prohibition on retroactive [that is, ex post facto] laws applies only to criminal law, yet the Congress may retroactively change tax-laws by deeming them "regulatory" yet they [government] pursues such tax-law violators in criminal court.}

I am a recent graduate; in fact your life may one day literally be in my hands as I am desirous to get a job working with the programming language Ada --which is commonly used in mission-/safety-critical software, like air traffic control, medical devices, nuclear reactors, military weapons-- so it's a DAMN GOOD THING that I am "fast to grab hold of semantics."

I just wish that you understood them. Being a Naval Flight Officer for 21 years, you'll have to excuse my lack of awe for directing aircraft about. Good to know that I was spot on concerning your educational time frame.

None; I never claimed that it wasn't. What I did claim was that some of your conditions might be immoral or illegal.

If someone gives you illegal or immoral conditions, I highly recommend that you refuse them. That said, you still have no right to go on their property. Two felonies don't make a right. If someone demands that you perform a sex act to go in their home or business, you have the right to refuse, not to push your way on in. This is what you have previously pointed out as a contradiction on my part, with the parsed quotes.

I sure as hell don't want them exempt from 4th Amendment restrictions simply because they aren't "government entities

Why not (and by the way, they are exempt unless acting as an agent of the government, as the courts have ruled)? However, just because they (like you) are exempt doesn't mean that they have no restrictions. If a private person searches your person or property without permission it is a felony. Note that individuals are charged with kidnapping or false imprisonment, while government entities are charged with false arrest or civil rights violations.

{If they were there is little doubt in my mind that the government could employ such a "private force" in order to circumvent Constitutional restrictions; before you say that doing so would be illegitimate (and I agree there) consider the case of tax-laws: the supreme court has ruled that the prohibition on retroactive [that is, ex post facto] laws applies only to criminal law, yet the Congress may retroactively change tax-laws by deeming them "regulatory" yet they [government] pursues such tax-law violators in criminal court.}

Which is the point I made above and upon which the courts have been very circumspect. If a private individual acts at the request of the police, their actions are treated as a government action. However, if they act on their own they are not. There are multiple clear cases of this, the clearest being a burglar who turned in a pedophile. This tip was allowed, even though the tipper was committing a felony. Very few people fully understand the implications in this, or I suspect that we would have more such tips.

Civil cases against private citizens concerning civil rights violations are generally spurious law, such instances were always covered my normal criminal code or tort law prior to the Civil Rights Act, except in the cases where the law protected such violations, e.g. Jim Crow.