Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,079 next last
To: tpaine

I see that you're descending into your usual juvenile tactics.


1,021 posted on 02/01/2007 8:28:09 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I was just correcting you on your correcting me. I said it was a bill, you said it was a proposed bill. You are incorrect. It is a bill.

And your continued diversions such as 'neener neener' and calling me Marsha (Where on earth did you get that?) results in a loss of credibility.


1,022 posted on 02/01/2007 8:30:12 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine

"Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles." -- tpaine
(b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply: (1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access. -- The Bill

"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine

"As Luis commented, there ~is~ an 'age old tradition' [reinforced by our 4th] that people have a right to be "secure in their person, houses, --"; thus they can ban arms from their home property." -- tpaine

"Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone" -- tpaine

"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine

"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine

"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine

"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine

"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine

"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine

"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine

"Authoritarian socialism is a political disease just as bad as liberal socialism, -- all socialists, left & right, -- want to enforce majority rule by government force." -- tpaine

"Actually, millions of us, -- and the NRA, - are demanding that governments do their duty and stop business parking lot owner's from violating an individuals right to carry arms in vehicles." -- tpaine

"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
1,023 posted on 02/01/2007 8:30:33 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1007 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; UpAllNight
Dream on that ~you~ fellas can impune my crediblity.


Unanswered by any of you property rights 'absolutists':

A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile.

Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?
1,024 posted on 02/01/2007 8:36:19 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; UpAllNight
Dream on that ~you~ fellas can impugn my credibility.


Unanswered by any of you property rights 'absolutists':

A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile.

Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?
1,025 posted on 02/01/2007 8:37:22 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

--Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?--


Pardon? You were the one that linked to the article on the bill you were supporting that allowed employers to ban weapons from private parking lots. You were the one caught denying that it would. Why? What is your agenda?


1,026 posted on 02/01/2007 8:41:59 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Luis,

I'm not familiar with this story. I just put a place marker so I can come back and review it.

'Pod.


1,027 posted on 02/01/2007 9:12:38 AM PST by sauropod ( "The View:" A Tupperware party in the 10th circle of Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Unanswered by any of the property rights 'absolutists':
A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile.
Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?

When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.

Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.

You want what's in YOUR property to be respected, Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.

while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.

Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.

1,028 posted on 02/01/2007 10:50:30 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Unanswered by any of the property rights 'absolutists':
A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile.
Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?

When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.

Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.

You want what's in YOUR property to be respected, Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.

while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.

Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.

1,029 posted on 02/01/2007 10:51:54 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights."

Everything that you bring into my property is my business.

What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their wishes?

How telling is it that you refuse to answer that?

1,030 posted on 02/01/2007 2:09:51 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1029 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Unanswered by any of the property rights 'absolutists':
A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile.
Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?

When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.

Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.

Everything that you bring into my property is my business.

Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.

What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their wishes? How telling is it that you refuse to answer that?

Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights. And it is obviously your 'wish' that your employees park on the designated lot.

You want what's in YOUR property to be respected,

Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.

while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.

Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.

Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?

1,031 posted on 02/01/2007 2:28:43 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It was said earlier:

"-- Our existence carries a social contract that should be secured by the Rule of Law; whereas nowadays we progressively appear to be be enslaved by Mob Rule and survival of the fittest. --"

Well put. Our constitutional social contract should indeed be secured by the rule of law.

Watson insisted that ~his~ rules over his property trumped our rule of law.

Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Luis's ludicrous counter:

No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.

No luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Dream on.

1,032 posted on 02/01/2007 2:40:14 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; SampleMan

The Bill of Rights impose restrictions on government, I've substantiated that with the Founder's own words during the debates surrounding the crafting of the Bill of Rights, as well as in posting standing case law...which means that by your own definition of public policy, the Second imposes no restrictions on private property owners.

Neither the Constitution of The United States, nor any State Constitution imposes the limitations detailed in the Bill opf Rihts on citizens. No statute, either Federal or State sets such a standard.

Property was considered a far greater right than any other right by the Founders; I substantiated that with the Founder's own words. They understood that without property there is no liberty.

Trespassing, defined as being on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, is illegal in every State of the Union; there are little if any limitations on what reasons private property owners may invoke to exclude anyone not bearing a properly issued Court order from their property, as a matter of fact, no reason need be given as to why property owners can exclude others from their property.

What laws exist prohibiting employers from banning guns from their company parking lots have come into being during the past two years, overturning long-standing tradition, and are being challenged on Constitutional grounds.

What you and the NRA are doing is in violation of the Constitution.


1,033 posted on 02/05/2007 4:27:59 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
ATLANTA (AP) - Employees who own guns could not be banned by their bosses from keeping those firearms locked in their vehicles at work under a bill introduced in the state Senate on Wednesday.

If passed, the legislation would allow employees to store the firearms in their cars or trucks in parking lots at their workplaces, as long as those areas are open to the public.

"If John Q. Public can drive in there with a gun, and the company would never know it, then they can't prohibit their employees from doing it," said Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, the plan's sponsor.

Rogers said the plan is mainly geared toward employees of stores and restaurants with public parking. He said he did not know of any cases in Georgia in which employees were banned from keeping firearms in those instances.

1,034 posted on 02/05/2007 4:31:52 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; SampleMan
"If passed, the legislation would allow employees to store the firearms in their cars or trucks in parking lots at their workplaces, as long as those areas are open to the public."

So...if the employer marks off an area of the parking lot, calls it "Employee parking", does not allow the public to use it, makes it a rule of employment that all employees must park in the designated employee parking zone, and then bans guns from that area, all customers will have guns, and the employees will be forbidden IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW SUPPORTED BY YOU AND THE NRA, from having a gun in their vehicle while they work.

Brilliant...just brilliant.

"...as he did not know of any cases in Georgia in which employees were banned from keeping firearms in those instances."

So, you fixed what wasn't broken?

Brilliant, just brilliant.

1,035 posted on 02/05/2007 4:37:54 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Luis's ludicrous counter:

No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.

No luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles. -- Dream on.

The Bill of Rights impose restrictions on government,

Our Constitution and its Amendments are our Law of the Land, and all of the people who live in the USA are bound to honor that Law. -- You and I swore an oath to that effect luis. -- Can you admit that?

I've substantiated that with the Founder's own words during the debates surrounding the crafting of the Bill of Rights, as well as in posting standing case law...which means that by your own definition of public policy, the Second imposes no restrictions on private property owners.

Your own sworn oath belies you luis. You swore to support & defend our Constitution - did you not?

Neither the Constitution of The United States, nor any State Constitution imposes the limitations detailed in the Bill opf Rihts on citizens. No statute, either Federal or State sets such a standard.

Dream on luis. You deny your own oath.

Property was considered a far greater right than any other right by the Founders; I substantiated that with the Founder's own words. They understood that without property there is no liberty.

Our constitution does not enumerate property as being considered "-- a far greater right than any other right. --" You're dreaming again luis.

Trespassing, defined as being on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, is illegal in every State of the Union; there are little if any limitations on what reasons private property owners may invoke to exclude anyone not bearing a properly issued Court order from their property, as a matter of fact, no reason need be given as to why property owners can exclude others from their property.

Bold dreams again luis. Your contracts for workers on your property cannot violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to arms.

What laws exist prohibiting employers from banning guns from their company parking lots have come into being during the past two years, overturning long-standing tradition, and are being challenged on Constitutional grounds. What you and the NRA are doing is in violation of the Constitution.

So you Brady Bunchers claim, as you disregard your own oaths to support & defend the 2nd Amendment.

1,036 posted on 02/05/2007 5:08:37 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1033 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles."

You lie about the issue, which betrays the fact that you have no issue.

The issue is not driving, you're not supporting legislation about driving, you're supporting legislation about parking.

The issue is parking on someone else's property against their expressed wishes.

You have no inherent right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes...so you lie about it.

What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes?

Answer that very simple question and you win this argument...but you won't because you can't.

1,037 posted on 02/06/2007 5:29:08 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Every question that I ask you are forced to respond to with an insult because you can't answer them with truth.

I'm not a "Brady Buncher", I'm a John Adams Buncher facing you Karl Marx Bunchers down.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams

1,038 posted on 02/06/2007 5:37:44 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I'm defending the Constitution from the likes of you.


1,039 posted on 02/06/2007 5:38:25 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Can you answer anything at all t?

What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes?

You're pitiful, and your efforst have hurt your own crusade.


1,040 posted on 02/06/2007 5:40:33 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,079 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson