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 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.