That said, I think I’ve had my last word on this thread. Feel free to respond, but I doubt I will.

I explained what I find inconsistent about your position, and what I find fraudulent. You claim that name calling means I can’t find ways to overcome your arguments, but that’s incorrect. I am pointing out those things in your position.

Ahhhhh, so you don’t believe in the freedom to associate only with those whom I want to on my own property?

Conducting business selling you a product or service and association are not the same at all. In conducting business one or more of my team will interact with you to provide what you want. I personally may not know you exist.

Social agenda, in the way you use it, means that I don’t agree with you, as far as I can tell.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…. *You* are the one who is instituting a policy of inquiry and condemnation. *You* are the one who not only does not agree, but will intentionally place me in a situation of confrontation and social ostracism.

Well, no, that is not at all what I’ve said. I’ve said that a company, or individual, on property that they own, have the ability to do such a thing.

I have said that I agree with this statement. I have also said that the method of direct inquiry without cause both place the law abiding citizen in a position of social ostracism and is an odious practice sufficient to prevent business transactions or association with you.

I’ve also said that if you were to refuse to leave my property upon request that I would call law enforcement to enforce my property rights

This, I have also agreed with. In quoting my statement, you must have read this.(??)

I bet you are all for property rights when it comes to you using your firearm to shoot someone on your property who doesn’t leave when you want them to.

These are YOUR words. NOT mine. I have said nothing at all to imply or support such an outrageous position.

Harry, you’re an inconsistent fraud.

Chuckle!!! Aren’t we all at times…… More seriously though, name calling is a sure sign that your ability to refute my points and expand on the discussion has reached it’s end.

You approve of government intrusion on private transactions and activities when it fits your beliefs, but oppose it when it doesn’t. I want government out of all private transactions, even if I don’t like those transactions on a personal level. Which of those positions is internally consistent? I suppose you think you are pro rights and pro liberty too, which is where the fraud portion of that comes from.

I truly do not know where to begin with this, other than to point out that government performs those duties which we, as individuals, would find onerous or impossible to do ourselves. In addition, it is the duty of government to support and protect those rights which the people – all citizens – have. It does this through laws which place limits on the actions of society and individuals.

It is the interpretation of those law’s scope and intent after the fact which requires lawyers and judges.

Determination of use or development traditionally has been just what business(es) and type(s) of building(s) you are constructing.

Ahhhhh, so you don’t believe in the freedom to associate only with those whom I want to on my own property? My property rights end at my ability to decide what sort of building I will construct on it, other than that my ability to use my property as I deem fit can and should be regulated, especially if you believe I have a “social agenda”. Social agenda, in the way you use it, means that I don’t agree with you, as far as I can tell.

Actually, I am quite picky about where I shop and whom I do business with. Stated firearms policy being far down on the list of reasons.

Ahhhh, but you didn’t answer my question. Amusement parks, to include Disneyland, have very stringent policies on searches and firearms. You said, earlier:

Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed.

I pointed out that Disneyland (and all other privately owned amusement parks I know of) have such policies. You said you would leave immediately and cancel your purchases. I assume that means that you do not go to amusement parks and that you never will. Could you just answer that question?

What reveals your agenda is your proactive approach and draconian actions. You, by assumption only, place law abiding citizens in the position of unfair termination if they agree to your “request” for a vehicular search, arrest for misdemeanor trespass if they speak up.

Well, no, that is not at all what I’ve said. I’ve said that a company, or individual, on property that they own, have the ability to do such a thing. I’ve never said I would do it. I’ve also said that if you were to refuse to leave my property upon request that I would call law enforcement to enforce my property rights. I bet you are all for property rights when it comes to you using your firearm to shoot someone on your property who doesn’t leave when you want them to. But if I want you to leave because I don’t want you and your firearm on my property, my property rights are just wrong, aren’t they?

Harry, you’re an inconsistent fraud. You approve of government intrusion on private transactions and activities when it fits your beliefs, but oppose it when it doesn’t. I want government out of all private transactions, even if I don’t like those transactions on a personal level. Which of those positions is internally consistent? I suppose you think you are pro rights and pro liberty too, which is where the fraud portion of that comes from.

Your belief appears to be that your individual right to bear a firearm should trump mine as the owner of a piece of property to determine how my property is used.

As has been pointed out, by counsel, defense and protection of myself and my family is my individual responsibility. Not yours, not law enforcement. Any action law enforcement takes is always after the fact. Any action you take will be not just after the fact but most likely after a lengthy court battle: should I or mine survive to begin with.

Many are not aware of this, but security guards are not law enforcement. They are citizens in a uniform whose legal duty is to observe and take notes. Not protect. The enforcement of company policy does not rest directly with the security apparatus, but with company management and law enforcement. In an egregious circumstance, security personnel must, by law, first advise management, then, if necessary, law enforcement. The *only* time a security officer can use deadly force is if *he/she* are directly attacked in a manner in which an ordinary citizen would be recognized to use deadly force.

As has been well established with other rights, no right is absolute: nor should it be.

I assume, then, that you do not give any of your business to Best Buy? They request to search you every time you leave the store. I also assume that you don’t go to Disneyland, or any other amusement park, since they also request to search you every time you enter the park (and do have a policy that says they can request to search your vehicle on their property).

Actually, I am quite picky about where I shop and whom I do business with. Stated firearms policy being far down on the list of reasons.

So my desire to determine what is brought on my property is a social agenda, not a determination of use or development?

What reveals your agenda is your proactive approach and draconian actions. You, by assumption only, place law abiding citizens in the position of unfair termination if they agree to your “request” for a vehicular search, arrest for misdemeanor trespass if they speak up.

This practice is at best odious, at worst counterproductive to business and social practices.

Determination of use or development traditionally has been just what business(es) and type(s) of building(s) you are constructing. You will be offering one or more products and/or services for sale. Determining who does and does not have a firearm is not the purvue of any business or service an ordinary citizen would provide.

But the bill’s most controversial provision, which senators added to the original House measure, would prohibit business owners from forbidding their workers from leaving guns inside their cars parked in employee lots that are also accessible to the public.

The National Rifle Association pushed hard for the provision last year, part of a multi-state campaign for employee gun rights stemming from an incident in Oklahoma, where Weyerhaeuser Corp. fired eight workers for violating a company policy against keeping guns in their cars at work.

The NRA threatened to condition their endorsements of Georgia lawmakers on how they voted on the bill.

But the measure died late in last year’s General Assembly session when the Georgia Chamber of Commerce objected that the provision would violate the private property rights of business owners.

Determined not to repeat last year’s divisive battle, the bill’s Republican backers crafted a compromise that would significantly limit the provision’s impact.

Under the compromise approved Thursday, the parking-lot provision would only apply to the approximately 300,000 Georgians holding state-issued firearms licenses.

To satisfy the chamber, it also stipulates that any property owner who wishes to ban firearms from his property may do so.

“This bill is only about the relationship between employers and employees,” said Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, the bill’s sponsor.

Gov. Sonny Perdue spoke out publicly against the bill in a speech on Tuesday, but then went to work behind the scenes to help shape the compromise.

“These were the types of constraints we were asking for,” the governor said Thursday shortly before the legislation hit the Senate floor. “This is the proper balance between the Second Amendment and our precious property rights.”

Senators also made several other changes to the bill, including a provision allowing owners of state firearms licenses to carry their weapons at state parks and historic sites.

Supporters cited this month’s murder of Meredith Emerson, 24, of Buford, who was killed while hiking at a state park in North Georgia.

The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the Senate changes.

And I am free to take out advertisements advising caution and forethought when dealing with your company or business. For example, you see no issue with putting your employees on the spot simply because, but I am willing to bet long odds that the same “request” is not made to your customers. You have the power of discrimination to do this. However, your practice of this type of discrimination tells volumes on just how you do business and what kind of – ahhh – person you are.

Yes, you are free to take out such advertising. I haven’t said otherwise. All rights are important, not just mine. Not just yours. Your belief appears to be that your individual right to bear a firearm should trump mine as the owner of a piece of property to determine how my property is used.

Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed. If I had just made a small purchase, I would take it back. If not allowed time to do so because of a direct request, I would do so via mail.

I assume, then, that you do not give any of your business to Best Buy? They request to search you every time you leave the store. I also assume that you don’t go to Disneyland, or any other amusement park, since they also request to search you every time you enter the park (and do have a policy that says they can request to search your vehicle on their property).

As I mentioned in a previous post, I find this to be draconian and worthy of legally accepted response. As can be seen from the posted definitions and sources, property rights have traditionally dealt with use and development of property: not the advancement of a social agenda.

So my desire to determine what is brought on my property is a social agenda, not a determination of use or development? Really? If I have said (as I have) that I am in favor of gun ownership unrestricted by government regulation of any sort, what social agenda would I be promoting if I then turn around and say that I don’t want a gun brought onto my private property? I have no social agenda, I just don’t want anyone else to bring a firearm onto my property. That seems to be well within how I use the land.

I would argue that you have your own social agenda and you intend to use threat of violence (i.e. government regulation) to make me accept your agenda and trump my property rights.

Why do you feel justified in using threatened violence via proxy to make me accept your agenda?

Actually that’s the cops who would need probable cause to search your vehicle. If you’re on my property I can request to search your vehicle for no more reason than that I’m an asshole, and I don’t need the involvement of the police at all. Although you’re free to reject my request and I’m free to tell you to leave.

And I am free to take out advertisements advising caution and forethought when dealing with your company or business. For example, you see no issue with putting your employees on the spot simply because, but I am willing to bet long odds that the same “request” is not made to your customers. You have the power of discrimination to do this. However, your practice of this type of discrimination tells volumes on just how you do business and what kind of – ahhh – person you are.

Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed. If I had just made a small purchase, I would take it back. If not allowed time to do so because of a direct request, I would do so via mail.

Nice fallacy of the complex question…

(What is a right?)

No, this is not a fallacy. It is a question whose answer is central to the application of law, business practices and social interaction. Individual rights and property rights are one and the same, since both are intrinsic to people individually.

And yes. There really is an answer which is practical and applicable.

You have a right to carry a gun to and from work, but that right stops at the company’s property line (because that’s where their property right start).

Property – Something that is owned or possessed. Property may be real (land), personal, tangible (touchable), or intangible (such as the interest in a play or other creative work)

http://www.ots.treas.gov/glossary/gloss-p.html

Land – Real property or any interest therein.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/25cfr151_01.html

Premises – A physical location that represents a unique and describable geographic entity where activity affecting the health and/or traceability of animals may occur.

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/User_Guide.htm

In Georgia, misdemeanor trespass is what someone would be charged with when directed to leave, and he/she does not.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I find this to be draconian and worthy of legally accepted response. As can be seen from the posted definitions and sources, property rights have traditionally dealt with use and development of property: not the advancement of a social agenda.

That would be me, and yes, since I pay their salaries with my taxes they have an obligation to protect my individual rights no matter what any court says because that’s their stated job (”To Protect And Serve”). If they are unwilling to live up this obligation, I consider my obligation to provide them with a livelihood through my taxes or consent null and void regardless of what any court says or what consequences may follow. That’s mainly because I don’t accept that courts and laws give us our rights…our rights were there before government existed and the government’s only function is to enforce our rights and protect our rights from the infringements of others. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then I consider my moral obligation to abide by that government at an end.

UCrawford,
Have you, or anyone that you know of, withheld taxes for this reason? Did the govt. resume services due to this? How did this work out for you, or anyone else, just curious.

Please don’t send me to Iraq, please don’t send me to Iraq, NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (as I’m being dragged away by a couple guys from Blackwater)

Didn’t I tell you this ? The first rule of being a minion, is don’t admit to being a minion.

The second rule is that I like two sugars in my coffee ;)

Kevin,

Revealing the existence of the conspiracy is a serious offense.

I have no choice but to discuss this with Dick Cheney, David Rockefeller, and the guys at Cato.

Uh, so is that minions post included in the drinking game? Because I was thinking about going to grab a beer, but I think I’d need 3 or 4 just to get through that comment.

I’m giving myself a shot of whiskey :)