“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.
No, I'm making an assumption about your location. Please stick to the topic. The starting premise is that we're really talking about his land, not a piece of property whose ownership is in dispute. So you didn't "agree" that you weren't on his land; you really, honest-to-goodness weren't standing 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.
Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban if he has already waived the right to issue it. Inviting you on his land is just such a waiver.
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.
No. You merely misunderstand the statement, because you fail to appreciate the fact that every contract is a limited waiver of certain rights.