“Do you get it now?”
I always got it.
Remember, what I said was that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” “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.”
Eventually you said “Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban…”
To which I replied: “Agreed and that’s the point I was trying to help you think through to: That “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” is an overbroad, incorrect statement. That there are situations in which he can not “ban anything he wants on his property,” your example of his having waived the right to do so being (ultimately the only?) one of them.”
The simple thing we both seem to agree on is that your original statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” is an overbroad, incorrect statement since there are situations, which you have described, when he can’t “ban anything he wants on his property.”
The rest of your post is diversionary (which doesn’t mean its invalid) from that simplicity.
Because you failed to understand my original statement. He can't ban gravity, either. Yeesh you can be dense sometimes.