“You may or may not have realized it, but you are suggesting it:”
“It” being (from your post 324) …”that the land owner might now say, "I want you off my land in one second... ONE! OK, now you're a trespasser!" and start shooting.”
That last quote is part of the following: “Supposing you are on his property because you were allowed on, he can't defend his property against your "trespassing", because you aren't trespassing. What you're suggesting is that the land owner might now say, "I want you off my land in one second... ONE! OK, now you're a trespasser!" and start shooting.” That was said in a response to my post 321.
What I said in my post 321 was “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving.”
That was in response to your “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” in your post 311.
I did not say anything about trespassing or anybody changing their mind after allowing somebody to do something or about setting time limits.
I’m not a professional user of logic, but it seems to me that you offered an imitation of what I said, knocked it down, and gave the appearance (at least superficially) of negating what I said.
If you want to negate what I said, you have to start with what I said
All I said was “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving” and I said it because it looks to me like your saying that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”
What you need to do is demonstrate why it doesn’t look like your saying “…that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving” when you said “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”
But don’t actually try to do that. You’re going to have other things to do.
Think it through more carefully. At the beginning, you aren't on his land. If he "bans your life" on his land, it doesn't matter; you aren't on his land. Now for such a ban to matter, you must be on his land. The key question is: how did you get there? If you got there without permission, then shooting you is what we call "self defense". If you got there with permission, then no he can't shoot you: he gave you his permission, and in doing so he waived his right to shoot you as a trespasser.
If you want to negate what I said, you have to start with what I said
"Banning your life on his property" is by itself a meaningless statement, because how you got onto his property is critical. Before he can shoot you on his land, you must be on it. To be on it, he must have allowed you on it. If he allowed you on it, then by doing so he has made a contract not to shoot you (unless you attack him).