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).
It's important to appreciate this fully. In Japanese culture, the situation was actually different. If you insulted your host, he was rather likely to kill you. If a foreigner visited a Japanese home in those days, he needed to stipulate that he wished not to be killed, even if he should inadvertantly offer a deadly insult. Japanese culture standardized the implicit contract that you were wililng to be beheaded for violation of various mores--but you could, by agreement, refuse to enter into that implicit contract. American culture standardizes the opposite assumption.
Note: of course Japanese culture was far from libertarian. In general, persons of lower social class could not opt out of a beheading by someone of higher social class. They had social contracts too, you see.
“At the beginning, you aren't on his land.”
You have incorrectly assumed an implicit agreement on our part that “…you aren’t on his land” was a condition. I did not willingly enter into any such agreement.
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.”
I said that because to me it looks like you’re saying that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”
I put no conditions on “he can ban.” Without conditions it doesn’t matter if one is on his property in the beginning or not. Your assertion is that “he can ban” therefore absent anything else (and there was nothing else) he can do so at anytime, even if he extended an invitation. And if the property owner decides to ban someone’s life, for being a trespasser after he withdrew the invitation without allowing time to leave or anything else, the property owner would not have allow time to leave before effecting the ban.
The rest of the mess came from your attributing things to me (or to an implied agreement I didn’t willingly enter).
But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing.
“If he allowed you on it, then by doing so he has made a contract not to shoot you (unless you attack him).”
Ok, I’ll stipulate that nobody ever allowed someone else on their property with the intent of shooting them, or if they did do so they were thwarted from their intent by remembering the implicit contract they made to not shoot them even though they had forgotten about this contract at the time they allowed the someone on their property (and thus did not enter it willingly) because the whole purpose of allowing them on the property was to shoot them.