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?