He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

[tpaine]

See 939.. Get that help.

[UpAllNight]

--My 'exercise' was first posted to Luis over a month ago. Since then luis has been posting 'out of context' excerpts, "trying to trap" me by leaving out details pertinent to my entire argument.--

Maybe, but on this thread you have used those tactics which is misleading to those on this thread. I have generally tried to stay out of y'all's mess but given how you keep giving me the run-around ...

[UpAllNight]

Ok. Please clarify.

You do/do not support the GA bill.

You did/did not call me a gun grabber.

You did/did not agree with me that Garry was a nut case.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

[UpAllNight]

--You need rest. -- And professional help.--

Yes. Maybe a 'professionl' could explain your mental state.

[UpAllNight]

--You do the same in the air, you can be arrested and charged with a federal crime once you touch down. That is one regulation for starters. --

Oh, now now I remember. 34CFR11.43 Do not interfer with hijackers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"He will write paragraphs often misleading about me but will not answer ONE simple question."

That thread that I linked you too...everyone debating with him comes to the same conclusion.

I like pointing out his lies and flip flops.

For example, on that very same thread he made the following two statements:

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

You've now figured out that once his obvious inconsistencies are pointed out to him, he retreats by refusing to answer direct questions, and instead, just repeats the same crap over and over again.

I posted the two statements above and asked him to explain the obvious inconsistency at least thirty times...no response.

[Luis Gonzalez]

His "exercise" is a blatant display of his disregard for the rights of others.

Here's one more, I create the following scenario:

I do business with a Hindu retreat, a religion that promotes pacifism.

They don't allow weapons on their grounds in accordance to their religious beliefs, it is clearly stated on the gates to their property, as well as the fence surrounding it.

No Guns, No Fishing, No Hunting.

Do you claim the right to violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of association, their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, their Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their persons and effects, and their rights to control access to, and exclude others from their property as a result of your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

Here's t's response:

"I am free to take their job, accept their rational & constitutional rules, -- and ignore their unconstitutional & irrational attempts to prohibit my right to have arms in my vehicle, because such boilerplate "rules" are null, unenforceable contractual decrees, - that violate the public policy of this Republic."

He is "free" to lie and deceive others, and free to violate the unalienable rights of others. He is "free" to enter into a contract that only binds the other person, but not him; if he doesn't agree with some of the terms of that contract, he simply makes the conscious choice to ignore them, using his Constitutional rights to violate your equally unalienable Constitutional rights.

Think about it for a minute.

If he makes the argument that your property is subject to his will vis a vis the Second Amendment, then he can walk into your house and take what's yours in the name of the Constitution.

He's already making that statement here...he call people who try to exercise their property rights in a way that he doesn't agree with "irrational" or "weird" and completely disregards their requests.

The Framers made damned sure that the government could not take from us our guns, they did it because they understood that property is the root of all liberty. These guys are using the Founder's Constitutionally embedded means to protect ourselves from the government violating our property rights to get the government is assisting in the violation of our property rights.

"One great object of Govt. is personal protection of the security of property." -- Alexander Hamilton

"Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams

"The right of property, is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." -- Arthur Lee

"The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -- John Adams

Property -- This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." -- James Madison

“...for the end of Government is the preservation of property, and there can be no property where there is an arbitrary power of taxation...[T]he law of nature, being founded in reason and justice, admits of property; for the better preservation of which, and for the use and enjoyment of it in peace and quiet, men entered into society. If therefore, any man, or body of men, claim a right to take away at pleasure from other men their property, and to dispose of it as they please[,] such claim tends to a dissolution of society, and is repugnant also to the law of nature, as it would place mankind in a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others.” -- Anonymous letter explaining the reasons behind the Boston Tea Party, published by the London Gazetteer on April 7, 1774

[UpAllNight]

Don't ask me. I can't even get him to answer a simple question.

[UpAllNight]

--You've now figured out that once his obvious inconsistencies are pointed out to him, he retreats by refusing to answer direct questions, and instead, just repeats the same crap over and over again.--

What is worse, even when one agrees with him he calls them gun grabbing absolutists. Go figure.

One thing, next time he asks for my comments on a thread, I won't give him the time of day.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Try to keep up t?

t posted the original "exercise" on this post

then he started getting his butt kicked, and modified it at least three times on the same thread.

He makes this incredible flip flop, all within the space of one paragraph:

"Nothing in that contract, or in common or constitutional law, gives that homeowner the right to infringe on my right to carry that shotgun in my truck, just like the rest of my tools." -- I'm well aware that by taking that gun ~out of the truck- or out of my toolbox, -- I'm on shaky constitutional & legal ground." tpaine

In the space of one sentence he says that "nothing in Common or Constitutional law" gives the homeowner to infringe on his right to carry that gun, and he ALSO claims to be "well aware" that if the gun was seen by the owner, he would be "on shaky Constitutional and legal ground."

The guy's worse than John Kerry!!!

Remember, this is the same guy who agreed with me and that "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."

[Luis Gonzalez]

The absolutist is him.

He's the only citizen with unalienable rights, and all our unalienable rights are subservient to his.

[tpaine]

You to are quite the pair when you get into your mutual admiration society hissy fit mode.

Thanks for the entertainment.

[UpAllNight]

--You to are quite the pair when you get into your mutual admiration society hissy fit mode. Thanks for the entertainment.--

I am only trying to understand why you won't answer my question. I have NO interest in your 'debate' with luis so don't go there. I am just asking luis so that I can understand why you won't answer the question.

[SlowBoat407]

That's what happens when people are reduced to feelings of "powerlessness." You eventually get an irrational, sometimes deadly backlash. Frankly, I'm surprised there have not been a whole lot more of these killings.

Unfortunately, that's the same excuse and justification people give for terrorist attacks against our country. In fact, I have heard almost those exact words used by people who think that 9/11 was "inevitable".

[tpaine]

I am only trying to understand why you won't answer my question.

I've answered it as in the post below , but you claim you can't 'understand'.

I have NO interest in your 'debate' with luis so don't go there. I am just asking luis so that I can understand why you won't answer the question.

I'll re-post this one more time:

You wrote:
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.

Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.

A condition of employment is that I obey the rules of my boss.  He has the right to not allow me on the property if I don't obey his rules.

You admit: "-- I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. --"
Does your boss have the right to stop you from carrying a gun in your vehicle"?

You said you agreed with the GA bill.

Yes, I did. The GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.

Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.

Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.

Not a daffy inference.  I read the bill, did you? 

Yes, and it intends to codify the right of GA employees to secure arms in their vehicles while at work.

My employer is not in GA but if we had that state law, he would be allowed to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property. 

Clever. now you claim the issue is about "uncontrolled guns" on his property; -- it's about guns secured in employees vehicles while parked.  

His policy is in strict agreement with the proposed GA law

No, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.

and in strict agreement with my position as stated to you prior to my reading the bill.

It's becoming quite evident your position parallels that of Luis Gonzalez. approves of parking lot prohibitions.
-- Thanks for your candor.

[higgmeister]

The camera then returns to the women sitting at the table, followed by break to commercial.

I disdain commercials also, but I fail to see how vigilantism/anarchy is to blame.

Please finish you point though. What happened after the commercial?

[CGTRWK]

The house I sold in in Maryland in 1999 went up 75% in constant dollars from 1999 to 2005.

Yep, most of them did, and property tax appraisals went up accordingly. The county was suddenly overflowing in tax money and the school lobby moved in on it. They didn't need it, enrollment has increased by less than 1% per year from 2000-2006. But it was there, it was spend it or lose it and they spent it.

Meanwhile, compensation for employment, at least for those employed outside the realm of selling your home, didn't do much of anything in constant dollars.

[UpAllNight]

I hope y'all voted out the county tax assessor.

[durasell]

Interesting. Got more?

[UpAllNight]

It is obviously clear that you do not know what you are talking about. The GA bill allows an employer to restrict employees from bring weapons onto his private parking lot. It is in total agreement with my position as I originally posted to you way back around 195. I think you need some time off.