Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine
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?

304 posted on 02/22/2006 12:29:56 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel
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.

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.

306 posted on 02/22/2006 1:02:39 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson