"You mean you were always on his property? Since the beginning of time?"
I didn't say anything at all about any of that. You assumed it all.
"If you would like to clearly spell out the scenario you have in mind, I welcome you to do so. "
It's your scenario, not mine. Back in Post 311 you said "If you pondered that, you would realize that he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot."
My objection from the beginning has been that "...he can ban anything he wants on his property..." is way to broad a statement.
You keep supporting my position with your assumptions that you made and I didn't while at the same time telling me I am wrong.
Since, as I said, it's your scenario not mine, you come up with a scenario in which "...he can ban anything he wants on his property..." is not an overly broad statement.
You said nothing about how you got onto the property--EXACTLY! Unfortunately, a correct analysis of your question depends critically on how you got on his land. If you got there without permission, he can, and might, kill you--and well within his rights. If you got there with permission, then the act of giving permission means he has waived the right to kill you.
Do you get it now?
The only limitation on one's property rights are contractual. If the man lets you onto his land, then you and he have a contract. If he hasn't, you don't. In other words, the property owner himself is the only one who sets limits on his rights, and he does it by making contracts.
By contrast, you appear to believe that the right is inherently limited.
I've addressed other examples of "limited rights," such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or "swinging one's arm." In each case, a correct analysis shows that one's actual rights are not limited. Any imagined "limitation" turns out to be one of two things: either the "limitation" is created by a voluntary contract; or the right you think is limited isn't an actual right in the first place.
To get the analysis right, it turns out that context is almost always critical. Do you have a "right to be on my land"? No. I can grant you the privilege, though. Do you have a "right to swing your arm"? No. What you have is a right to use your arm in any way that doesn't impose non-consensual results on someone else's property. Do you have a "right of free speech"? No: you own your mouth, but you don't have the right to wake me at 3 a.m. with shouting, because you don't have any right to project your voice onto my land. IF you visit my house, you can't say anything you please, because I can make your privilege contingent on, say, not swearing. Do you have a "right not to be killed"? No: you can be killed in self defense. What you do have is a right not to have force initiated against you--i.e., not to suffer violence if you haven't initiated violence yourself.
Some of those statements appear to contradict the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, but there's a good reason for that. First, those documents use imprecise language. Do you have a right to "life"? You're guaranteed to die, so does that mean God's violating your rights? What you really have is a right not to suffer death as a result of someone else's initiation of aggression--or, still somewhat loosely, a "right not to be killed".
The second reason is that the "rights" in the Bill o' Rights aren't meant to list "human rights"; rather, they represent certain guarantees that government won't violate your human rights. So, for example, the "freedom of speech" really means that government promises not to try and muzzle your speech. (Of course it breaks that promise routinely.)
That latter point is usually not understood. I remarked to my boss once that he doesn't have "free speech" in my house; if he cussed in front of my son I'd throw his butt out. He couldn't process it at first--I had to repeat it several times. A while later he looked at me quizzically and said, "Is that true?"