Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
Your rights and his [the employer] are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violates his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights.
Thats it? -- Thats your "try"?
-- Like the rest of your comments in that post, you make no rational arguments to counter.
-- My challange stands, unrebuttable.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property.
How silly. I'm not denying it's his parking lot; -- I'm saying that; -- my gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights; and you cannot show such a violation.
Go ahead an try.
...I just get to tell him what he can and can't do with it, and that's no violation of his property rights.
Your rights and his [the employer] are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violates his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights.
Thats it? -- Thats your "try"?
-- Like the rest of your comments in that post, you make no rational arguments to counter.
-- My challange stands, unrebuttable.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property.
How silly. I'm not denying it's his parking lot; -- I'm saying that; -- my gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights; and you cannot show such a violation.
Go ahead an try.
I just get to tell him what he can and can't do with it, and that's no violation of his property rights.
My gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights.
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right? You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission. He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission. If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights.
His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property.
So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again, why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right? You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission. He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission. If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights.
His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property.
So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again, why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission.
I have his permission [in most cases mandated] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission.
Nope, -- that's where you are wrong. -- My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. - Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry.
If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights. His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property. So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again,
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't. You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational". It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours.
It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it."
With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated by local ordinance's] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't.
You deny reality. Most local parking ordinance's mandate off street company parking.
You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational".
Quite a few States now differ. They agree that we have a right to carry arms to & from work, and are protecting that right from irrational infringements made by people like you.
It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours. It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it." With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
Another bunch of irrational personal remarks, made because you can't argue your position in a logical manner. Be ashamed izzy.
Irrelevant. Quite a few other states have unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What does that prove?
you can't argue your position in a logical manner.
You have not tried once so far to logically argue why a person doesn't actually have the power to decide who does and who doesn't use his property, or how his property is used. Try now.
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated by local ordinance's] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't.
You deny reality. Most local parking ordinance's mandate off street company parking.
You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational".
Quite a few States now differ.
Irrelevant. Quite a few other states have unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What does that prove?
It only proves that a lot of different people like you are irrational about guns, izzy.
States agree that we have a right to carry arms to & from work, and are protecting that right from irrational infringements made by people like you.
It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours. It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it." With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
Another bunch of irrational personal remarks, made because you can't argue your position in a logical manner. Be ashamed izzy.
You have not tried once so far to logically argue why a person doesn't actually have the power to decide who does and who doesn't use his property, or how his property is used. Try now.
Why should I argue against our property rights? My car trunk is my property, and I have the power to use it to store a weapon while I'm working. -- My employer has no power to infringe on that right by using irrational reasoning about his own rights being 'violated'.. My trunk is not his property, and nothing in it can 'violate' his property.
Get it yet izzy?
Your trunk is your property. You can put anything in it you please. Your employer's parking lot is his property, and he gets to say whether your car is allowed there. He said it is, as long as there are no guns in it. If you can't get that through your head, then further discussion is fruitless.
Curiously, I notice you have conspicuously avoided claiming you can bring your gun into the building, even though a weapon carried on your person is your constitutional right. Why not? Simple: you do realize that your employer can ban personal firearms in the work place. If you pondered that, you would realize that he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot. Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights.
His rule isn't a violation of your rights, because you have no right to enter his property at all. It's a privilege granted, or not, by the property owner.
Why should I argue against our property rights? My car trunk is my property, and I have the power to use it to store a weapon while I'm working. -- My employer has no power to infringe on that right by using irrational reasoning about his own rights being 'violated'.. My trunk is not his property, and nothing in it can 'violate' his property.
Your trunk is your property. You can put anything in it you please.
Thank you for that 'concession' izzy.
Your employer's parking lot is his property, and he gets to say whether your car is allowed there.
Again, -- you deny the reality of local parking laws. -- Fruitless repetition.
He said it is, as long as there are no guns in it. If you can't get that through your head,
You're fruitlessly repeating yourself.
then further discussion is fruitless.
Curiously, I notice you have conspicuously avoided claiming you can bring your gun into the building, even though a weapon carried on your person is your constitutional right. Why not? Simple: you do realize that your employer can ban personal firearms in the work place. If you pondered that, you would realize that he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot.
A political compromise has been made with irrational anti-gun nuts, izzy. They can keep guns out of their buildings, but they can't ban them altogether.
Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights.
There you go again, -- a gun in a car trunk violates no ones 'right'.
His rule isn't a violation of your rights, because you have no right to enter his property at all. It's a privilege granted, or not, by the property owner.
You're fruitlessly repeating old points.
"You just said, "You're wrong! You're right..."
No I didn't. i said the premise is absurd.
Because you have never answered them. I keep repeating them, in hopes that you'll either (1) realize they're correct, or (2) actually attempt to prove them wrong.
Strawman argument? Do you dispute that VMI argued that the dissolution of the Somali government was a good thing and dismissed the cost of 1,000,000 lives?
I find no reference to the figure of 1,000,000 lives at all.
Where do you get that figure, and upon what basis to you attribute that loss to the lack of formal government? How many lives do you think it's cost countries like Zimbabwe to have the government they've got?
"The BBC's country profile of Somalia sums up this view as widely publicized by the mainstream media: "Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Fighting between rival warlords and an inability to deal with famine and disease led to the deaths of up to one million people.""
From the link to the article I posted.
You had a double post at 304 and 305 starting out : “You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?” and ending “So instead of dumbly repeating…”
I had to comment ‘cause like the man said “That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.”
(No offense intended by any of the above, it just struck me as humorous.)
I almost commented on your Post 296 statement to tpaine: “If you insist on violating his rights, he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.”
That caught my eye because the “…and I hope he does” seems to conflict with the “I'm a Bible-believing Christian…” from your home page. But you don’t need to explain it unless you feel the need to practice an explanation you might need to give in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.