Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

[bignflnut]

Through his 11-plus years as leader, from 2007 to 2015 as minority leader and the last three and a half in the majority, McConnell has not faced a serious challenge from within.

It is a tough daily grind in the Senate, where McConnell's party holds a slim 51-49 majority.

Sometimes, he has fallen short, as with Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare last year, and he has bristled at some of Trump's provocative moves.

But when it came time to be a loyal footsoldier, he led the charge, pushing massive tax cuts across the finish line.

Where the leader is cementing Trump's legacy most clearly is in the judiciary, with the Senate confirming large numbers of conservative federal judges.

"He has been our champion in getting judges confirmed," White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told AFP.

McConnell's savviest political move this year may have been to scrap most of the Senate's August recess, citing Democrats' "historic obstruction" of Trump nominees.

But the extra workdays in Washington will also keep Democrats who face tough re-election bids this year off the trail during a crucial campaign month.

Another "Champion" we can't do without!

[bignflnut]

President Donald Trump on Monday ordered the Pentagon to establish a stand-alone Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces.

"We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal," Trump said at a meeting of the National Space Council at the White House.

"It is going to be something so important."

He also asked Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford to carry out the process of standing up the new military service.

Whew! Finally a 6th branch of armed forces to defend/conquer SPACE. Suddenly a new class of yet un-hired and untrained warrior is given more RKBA rights than we commoners. Shall laser weapons now be developed and kept from the citizen? Perhaps under Caetano, these weapons will be available, if sold commercially.

Citizen RKBA-free zones, licensed carry reciprocity, suppressor freedom, Nixing NICS, ending the FFL system and the like were a lower priority than celestial warfare.

[bignflnut]

The president’s previous choice, Justice Neil Gorsuch, wasted no time in declaring his support for the right to keep and bear arms. Less than three months after taking office, Gorsuch joined Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California, a challenge to the state’s may-issue carry regime.

Moreover, defending the Second Amendment continues to be a focal point of the president’s agenda. On the same day as Kennedy’s retirement announcement, President Trump hosted a group of 150 student leaders at the Face-to-Face With Our Future event. During his remarks to the group, the president stated, “You have to believe in protecting the entire Constitution, as written, including the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. Second Amendment.”

Hence the horrible Fix NICS bill/law and the imminent bump-stock ban.

Stuff it in yer ear, NRA!

[M-Quigley]

President Donald Trump on Monday ordered the Pentagon to establish a stand-alone Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces.

"We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal," Trump said at a meeting of the National Space Council at the White House.

"It is going to be something so important."

He also asked Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford to carry out the process of standing up the new military service.

Whew! Finally a 6th branch of armed forces to defend/conquer SPACE. Suddenly a new class of yet un-hired and untrained warrior is given more RKBA rights than we commoners. Shall laser weapons now be developed and kept from the citizen? Perhaps under Caetano, these weapons will be available, if sold commercially.

Citizen RKBA-free zones, licensed carry reciprocity, suppressor freedom, Nixing NICS, ending the FFL system and the like were a lower priority than celestial warfare.

Regarding the bolded, the US Air Force already has a space command, tasked with that issue. The top AF general has publically said making it a separate branch is not needed nor is it a good idea, but of course does support more spending in that area. The Russians and Chinese are allegedly spending much more resources with development of space related weaponry, including low earth orbit space planes. It's almost like the new space race. If it ever does become a separate branch, they'll probably just move the existing personnel to start out with, like when the Army Air Corps became the Air Force.

[bignflnut]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Bowing to public pressure, Donald Trump has agreed to remove a popular mainstay of the Supreme Court nomination process: the swimsuit competition.

“This is long overdue,” said law professor Edgar Ford. “It’s time to put out the message that judges of all shapes and sizes can rule on Constitutional issues. Not just those who look good in a bikini.”

The swimsuit competition has been considered controversial ever since it caused the otherwise-qualified Robert Bork not to get a seat at the Supreme Court in 1987. More recently, the swimsuit competition was why the Republicans wouldn’t even consider Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, instead waiting for the election of Donald Trump, whom supporters consider to have a better eye for such things.

It will be a new era selecting a Supreme Court Justice without the swimsuit competition, and Trump made it clear he made this choice grudgingly. “People don’t want it anymore, so I got rid of it,” Trump told the press. “But let’s not pretend people like Supreme Court Justices for their personalities.”

The Supreme Court contest will continue to involve a Q&A, an evening robe competition, and a talent show. For the talent portion, an insider reportedly advised the contestants that Trump loves puppet shows, “especially if the puppets hit each other.”

It's Babylon Bee satire, but, oh, how rich!

[bignflnut]

A the top of this page is a glowing article calling Mitch McConnell a "CHAMPION" for getting judges confirmed...then came Kennedy's retirement, huh?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) is aggressively lobbying President Trump for a Supreme Court pick such as Judge Raymond Kethledge who does not have a record of conservative opinions that would turn off liberals.

Breitbart News has learned that, in private conversations with left-leaning reporters, McConnell is pushing the notion that Judge Raymond Kethledge will be unlikely to raise the ire of his Senate colleagues, potentially sparing him a confirmation battle in an election year.

“McConnell has said he does not want a SCOTUS battle in an election year,” a source familiar with McConnell’s off-the-record conversations with at least one journalist told Breitbart News. “He thinks Kethledge would be easy to confirm because Kethledge is not a consistent conservative.”

The Swamp is on board with Kethledge...that's all I need to know about him...
We shall see...

[bignflnut]

There's a thought out there that the GOP trails the Democrats by about 20 years (see a myriad of issues where this is true). Those of us old enough to remember the 90s recall the "Character Matters" campaigning against B Clinton.

Back then the rally cry of conservative talk radio was “character matters.”This was primarily started by Rush Limbaugh, who was 90% of the conservative media at the time. I doubt that present Trump shills like Sean Hannity would deny having said that “character matters” at the time.

For a lot of people on the right, character now only matters when it doesn’t damage their chosen candidate."

20 years later, enter Trump.

Even if giving a six-figure payout to a porn star as hush money would have destroyed any other president, we might decide that it doesn't tell us anything about Donald Trump that we didn't already know, so it's not worth getting worked up over. In other words, he can get away with it because he's already understood to be such an awful person. How many presidents can you say that about?

Even in the instance of Special Investigations Starr/Mueller... they take similar approaches...

Meanwhile, the bar will keep getting raised as to what would justify removal of a president. Is it unseemly and highly inappropriate for a president to smear the prosecutors who have been duly tasked with investigating him? Sure. But it worked before with Bill Clinton, so it is not crazy to imagine that it just might work again.

(Side note, this Russia thing is a hidden coup attempt being covered up by Mueller. Clinton actually did what he was accused of.)

That's all after ripping off Ronny and Bill's "Make America Great Again" slogan.

Just as the Clinton's promised greater days for various minorities, they abused their constituents and did not deliver on campaign promises. But Donald and Bill aren't Hillary, thank heavens...

All of this to say that tribalism will not unify a nation, it will divide it, showing each side to be hypocrites along the way. Principles, values and holding to transcendental truths unite a nation in purpose, driving it to greater days.

[bignflnut]

This principle has direct relevance for so-called “gun-free zones.” These are locations in which the government has declared, using the threat of punishment to force compliance, that carrying firearms is prohibited. In coercively requiring us to disarm, the government intentionally handicaps our ability to effectively and reasonably protect ourselves.

If the government tells us that we can’t carry our guns into a specific location, it must assume the responsibility of making up for the deficit.

It has, in other words, put us in a position of increased vulnerability with respect to our self-protection. If it does nothing to make up for the deficit in protection that it has created, then the government has violated our right to self-protection. If someone is harmed or killed as a result, then the government is guilty of a violation of said person’s right to life.

There is a large body of evidence showing that guns are very effective at producing successful outcomes when used in self-defense. Because of this, there is a strong moral presumption in favor of allowing individuals to carry guns in public. After all, our right to life follows us wherever we go, and so the right to defend our lives must also accompany us. If the government is to override this presumption and tell us that we can’t carry our guns into a specific location, then it must assume the special responsibility of making up for the deficit in self-protection that it has created. It must, in other words, provide some alternative that serves the same function that my gun would have served had I been allowed to carry it.

I would include property owners in this as well. If a property owner deprives people of the most effective means of self defense, aside from the security duty they should justly have, the civil government should step in to protect and uphold the self-defense Rights that are being stripped by property owners. Self-defense, or RKBA, being negative Rights, impose no safety threat or no duty on anyone else to increase security (quite the opposite). However, the property owner is taking away the Rights of the patrons and is therefore subject to government sanction.

The issue is that civil government grants (itself or property owners) a liability waiver after stating that people may not enter the largest public venues (schools, government buildings, churches, stadiums, etc) while carrying the most effective tool in tactically defending their own life. They do this selling the absurd belief that someone bent on physical harm will obey a law prohibiting them from bringing a weapon to a place where nobody else will legally possess one.

[JustaShooter]

I would include property owners in this as well. If a property owner deprives people of the most effective means of self defense, aside from the security duty they should justly have, the civil government should step in to protect and uphold the self-defense Rights that are being stripped by property owners. Self-defense, or RKBA, being negative Rights, impose no safety threat or no duty on anyone else to increase security (quite the opposite). However, the property owner is taking away the Rights of the patrons and is therefore subject to government sanction.

While I agree with your views regarding public property and facilities, I strongly disagree with the above.

Property rights are the very foundation of all other rights, and a property owner's rights to that property are (or should be) absolute. Since you have no right to enter the property of another, any restrictions on that ability placed there by the property owner or his agent in no way strip away any of your rights. You don't like the restrictions, you are free to go elsewhere.

I also disagree with your claim that exercising your RKBA imposes no safety threat. The number of people who have negligent discharges shows the fallacy of that argument. I *personally* believe the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the positive aspects of RKBA, but that is *my* choice for my person and my property.

Just as your right to free speech ends at my property line, so does your right to keep and bear arms. And as with free speech, I may grant you the privilege - but it is mine to grant or not when on my property.

Frankly, I find your willingness to use the force of government to take away property owner's rights abhorrent and I'd have never expected that from you of all people.

[schmieg]

I would include property owners in this as well. If a property owner deprives people of the most effective means of self defense, aside from the security duty they should justly have, the civil government should step in to protect and uphold the self-defense Rights that are being stripped by property owners. Self-defense, or RKBA, being negative Rights, impose no safety threat or no duty on anyone else to increase security (quite the opposite). However, the property owner is taking away the Rights of the patrons and is therefore subject to government sanction.

While I agree with your views regarding public property and facilities, I strongly disagree with the above.

Property rights are the very foundation of all other rights, and a property owner's rights to that property are (or should be) absolute. Since you have no right to enter the property of another, any restrictions on that ability placed there by the property owner or his agent in no way strip away any of your rights. You don't like the restrictions, you are free to go elsewhere.

I also disagree with your claim that exercising your RKBA imposes no safety threat. The number of people who have negligent discharges shows the fallacy of that argument. I *personally* believe the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the positive aspects of RKBA, but that is *my* choice for my person and my property.

Just as your right to free speech ends at my property line, so does your right to keep and bear arms. And as with free speech, I may grant you the privilege - but it is mine to grant or not when on my property.

Frankly, I find your willingness to use the force of government to take away property owner's rights abhorrent and I'd have never expected that from you of all people.

I find it odd that I'm defending bignflnut as he and I often differ, if not in the idea, in the way of presenting it. However, please note that while it sounds like he advocates bringing the weight of government down on property owners, the reality is that the weight of government has been placed upon gun owners and property owners given a pass for their decisions, so his stating that such property owners should be"subject to government sanction" is merely stating a sanction of removing the special protection they currently enjoy.

I also support the rights of property owners and I see little chance of liability for a private owner. Commercial property owners may fall into a different category though by the nature of the property use because the property is held open to the public and, in many cases, for a reason that is absolutely necessary for the public to access. Examples might be the only grocery in a small town or the only pharmacy in a rural area. No one is challenging the right of the property owner in those cases to restrict carry, but, in some cases, that decision might be seen as negligent or reckless, especially if the history of the property suggests that the public is endangered when present. At what point does a pharmacy move from a public necessity to a public nuisance because it is regularly being robbed for the drugs it contains?

[bignflnut]

Justa,
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on this matter and hold nothing personal against you. I don't know you. You don't know me. I'm not assailing your character, patriotism, etc. Let's have a healthy exchange of ideas, shake hands and come out swinging.

While I agree with your views regarding public property and facilities, I strongly disagree with the above.

Help me with that. Why, if the government owned the property, as much as government can own anything, should they NOT be able to ban people from RKBA on their property? The interwebs, not to mention snail mail (BMV tags) make physical locations increasingly irrelevant, right? (acknowledging things like hospitals as an exception)

Property rights are the very foundation of all other rights, and a property owner's rights to that property are (or should be) absolute.

NO disagreement from me. Property rights being the foundation of all rights, I have ownership of my body. I also have the ability to defend myself, hence RKBA. Not only do I have self-defense rights, but they are unalienable, by way of my humanity.

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

Since you have no right to enter the property of another,...

I'm with you here. You don't have a neon sign above your door that says "OPEN", right? You don't have billboards on the highway telling me where to turn to find your showroom, tavern, mini-mall, coffee shop, etc? You might even have signs that say "NO TRESSPASSING" or "NO SOLICITATION". Yup. If I don't have a legal reason to be there, I can't just walk into the local ink factory. I'm unauthorized. Authorized Personnel Only. Yup.

...any restrictions on that ability placed there by the property owner or his agent in no way strip away any of your rights.

Disagree. Ohio's Constitution:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

The 2nd Amendment in the BOR:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There's nothing in here about "Congress shall make no law..." or this being directly related to government, it is a simple declaration that people have RKBA and that shall not be infringed. You're proposing supra rights for commercial property, as we share the same property rights.

You don't like the restrictions, you are free to go elsewhere.

In business, "Sales is King", so why would a retailer invite people and potential sales to a location only to have the door say "We don't serve your kind here"? Aside from the foolishness of profit being destroyed, you're not even banishing me. You'd allow me to buy a concert ticket, you'd hand me a coupon when I entered your mall and ask if I needed help to make my experience better. You're attempting to banish an inanimate object, but would welcome me with open arms, or conduct voluntary transactions with me online/snail mail/telephone. You're not Sweet Cakes by Melissa having a moral objection to the transaction. This illustrates the weakness of your position. (Again, nothing personal.)

I also disagree with your claim that exercising your RKBA imposes no safety threat. The number of people who have negligent discharges shows the fallacy of that argument. I *personally* believe the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the positive aspects of RKBA, but that is *my* choice for my person and my property.

This goes back to the Responsibility to exercise Rights without imposing on other people's rights. That's the beauty of Negative Rights -- they're self regulating! Negligent discharges are properly met with consequences and repercussions. My point is that my RKBA imposes no duty on you to increase security (quite the opposite). RKBA does you no harm. On the other hand, your banishment of my hidden sidearm does hinder my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The conflict is very one sided in my view.

The issue is that the government grants a liability waiver to those removing my sidearm, be it government or commercial property owners. Why should they not have a greater duty to protect my life, having improperly banished my sidearm?

Just as your right to free speech ends at my property line, so does your right to keep and bear arms. And as with free speech, I may grant you the privilege - but it is mine to grant or not when on my property.

Respectfully disagree. Yes, I have a duty to exercise my Rights responsibly, lest I impose on the Rights of others. But you can't accept my presence and banish my RKBA and/or my free speech. I can't walk into your showroom and begin shouting baseball statistics or something odious. I can't hand out coupons for Burger King in the McDonald's lobby. So, if you want to say that I'm not an absolutist on the basis of responsibility, ok. Either way, a commercial property owner has no ability to strip me of my rights when I'm doing nothing wrong, and even when I am, there's due process and such.

Frankly, I find your willingness to use the force of government to take away property owner's rights abhorrent and I'd have never expected that from you of all people.

That is my point, I'm not taking away a property owner's Rights. I'm upholding property owners rights to self-defense. Furthermore, the proper role of government is to use force in upholding Rights:

2. The people create their governments primarily to serve one supreme purpose: to "secure" the safety and enjoyment of their God-given, unalienable rights. To make and keep them secure is government's primary function and chief reason for existence, according to the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

(I recognize that civil government is corrupt and am being idealistic, granted)

I fail to see how a commercial property owner can separate the person from the inanimate object, assuming some type of irresponsible exercise of Negative Rights that impede the owners ability to conduct commerce. People have a right to said object, specifically enumerated by multiple constitutions. There's a certain amount of behavior and decorum that goes into being in public, as with your First Amendment example (obscene T-shirts, hat symbols, etc).

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on government commercial property rights and how they differ from private commercial property rights, over and above the private commercial property owner's rights superseding personal ownership of one's body and RKBA.

[bignflnut]

I find it odd that I'm defending bignflnut as he and I often differ, if not in the idea, in the way of presenting it. However, please note that while it sounds like he advocates bringing the weight of government down on property owners, the reality is that the weight of government has been placed upon gun owners and property owners given a pass for their decisions, so his stating that such property owners should be"subject to government sanction" is merely stating a sanction of removing the special protection they currently enjoy.

I don't think that commercial property owners would have banished my sidearm without the encouragement and waiver liability granted in Ohio, so I agree in part. There is no neutrality on the issue, and the government, instead of protecting RKBA, has sidied with commercial property owners. As it is, they can recklessly and tyrannically attempt to hold my weapon outside even their parking lot. For instance, I don't think UPS should/could ban a driver/delivery person/warehouse worker, from carrying on the job. They can insist on concealing, or a uniform exterior look, as part of employment, instead of guys wearing duty belts with 5 pouches attached. Again, what is the proper role of government? Protection of one's RKBA, in part. A company can insist on a uniform exterior, but can't dictate what's in my pockets (or absent).

I also support the rights of property owners and I see little chance of liability for a private owner. Commercial property owners may fall into a different category though by the nature of the property use because the property is held open to the public and, in many cases, for a reason that is absolutely necessary for the public to access. Examples might be the only grocery in a small town or the only pharmacy in a rural area. No one is challenging the right of the property owner in those cases to restrict carry, but, in some cases, that decision might be seen as negligent or reckless, especially if the history of the property suggests that the public is endangered when present. At what point does a pharmacy move from a public necessity to a public nuisance because it is regularly being robbed for the drugs it contains?

Yes, I am challenging the "Right" of commercial property owners, on the same basis that I challenge the government property owners. I have the unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it adds no duty and causes no harm to the legal endeavor or other Rights of the commercial/government property owner. On what basis should it be removed? What does unalienable mean?
From page 19

A right is definedby Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power, privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another ... the powers of free action.”2 Please note that rights are “inherent” in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means.
Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isn’t heavy, you can be certain that it’s not made
of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and “suck out the heavy.”
You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light
and fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead.

[WY_Not]

What you don't have is the right to set foot on my property without my permission. So, you can either agree to my terms or keep on walking.

[JustaShooter]

What you don't have is the right to set foot on my property without my permission. So, you can either agree to my terms or keep on walking.

And THIS is my point in a nutshell.

[JustaShooter]

Justa,
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on this matter and hold nothing personal against you. I don't know you. You don't know me. I'm not assailing your character, patriotism, etc. Let's have a healthy exchange of ideas, shake hands and come out swinging.

Indeed.

While I agree with your views regarding public property and facilities, I strongly disagree with the above.

Help me with that. Why, if the government owned the property, as much as government can own anything, should they NOT be able to ban people from RKBA on their property? The interwebs, not to mention snail mail (BMV tags) make physical locations increasingly irrelevant, right? (acknowledging things like hospitals as an exception)

I believe you make a mistake in the way you phrase the question. I say public property, you say government-owned property. But regardless, the reason the government cannot prohibit the exercise of our RKBA on public property is that the constitution prohibits them from doing so. Recall that the 2A of the CONUS, which has also been incorporated to the states, constrains government, not the people. Government holds public property in trust for the people, therefore cannot infringe on the exercise of our rights on that property.

Property rights are the very foundation of all other rights, and a property owner's rights to that property are (or should be) absolute.

NO disagreement from me. Property rights being the foundation of all rights, I have ownership of my body. I also have the ability to defend myself, hence RKBA. Not only do I have self-defense rights, but they are unalienable, by way of my humanity.

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

If I understand the point of the above, it is still irrelevant. As you have *no* right to enter my property and can only do so at my pleasure, you must agree to my terms. If you do not, you have no privilege to do so and you violate *my* rights if you persist on entering. The concept that the definition of "inalienable" means you cannot willingly give up your rights is flawed - people do so all the time. However, - and I think this is crucial - that is irrelevant because your RKBA is *not* inalienable. Your right to life is, as is your right to liberty, but not your right to keep and bear arms. If it were otherwise, then our right to free speech would likewise be inalienable and I submit that is not the case and I do not see you arguing otherwise.

Since you have no right to enter the property of another,...

I'm with you here. You don't have a neon sign above your door that says "OPEN", right? You don't have billboards on the highway telling me where to turn to find your showroom, tavern, mini-mall, coffee shop, etc? You might even have signs that say "NO TRESSPASSING" or "NO SOLICITATION". Yup. If I don't have a legal reason to be there, I can't just walk into the local ink factory. I'm unauthorized. Authorized Personnel Only. Yup.

...any restrictions on that ability placed there by the property owner or his agent in no way strip away any of your rights.

Disagree. Ohio's Constitution:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

The 2nd Amendment in the BOR:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There's nothing in here about "Congress shall make no law..." or this being directly related to government, it is a simple declaration that people have RKBA and that shall not be infringed. You're proposing supra rights for commercial property, as we share the same property rights.

Perhaps this is where we part ways. I disagree that any part of the CONUS or BOR is anything *but* a restriction on government. Every word of that document was intended to spell out the role and restrictions of government. Noting more. Nothing less. I propose giving no more rights to commercial property *owners* than I do any property owner. The fiction that commercial property owners have *fewer* rights than any other private property owner was made out of whole cloth by the government in their desire to consolidate more power than the CONUS allows them.

You don't like the restrictions, you are free to go elsewhere.

In business, "Sales is King", so why would a retailer invite people and potential sales to a location only to have the door say "We don't serve your kind here"? Aside from the foolishness of profit being destroyed, you're not even banishing me. You'd allow me to buy a concert ticket, you'd hand me a coupon when I entered your mall and ask if I needed help to make my experience better. You're attempting to banish an inanimate object, but would welcome me with open arms, or conduct voluntary transactions with me online/snail mail/telephone. You're not Sweet Cakes by Melissa having a moral objection to the transaction. This illustrates the weakness of your position. (Again, nothing personal.)

I disagree that my position is weakened by your argument. Within your very argument is the basis for my position: I *am* willing to take your money as long as that doesn't involve you *entering my property* without meeting my conditions. You say I'm banning an inanimate object. I say I'm banning a person who chooses to disregard my wishes - however flawed and uninformed they might be. You say I've no moral basis to object to the transaction - granted. The issue isn't the transaction. But as a pacifist, I have a moral objection to your presence in my property while armed.

I also disagree with your claim that exercising your RKBA imposes no safety threat. The number of people who have negligent discharges shows the fallacy of that argument. I *personally* believe the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the positive aspects of RKBA, but that is *my* choice for my person and my property.

This goes back to the Responsibility to exercise Rights without imposing on other people's rights. That's the beauty of Negative Rights -- they're self regulating! Negligent discharges are properly met with consequences and repercussions. My point is that my RKBA imposes no duty on you to increase security (quite the opposite). RKBA does you no harm. On the other hand, your banishment of my hidden sidearm does hinder my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The conflict is very one sided in my view.

Ah! But your RKBA does cause me mental harm because it violates my fervently-held pacifist beliefs. On the other hand, I've not restricted your rights at all - you either voluntarily agree to set them aside and enter my property, or you go elsewhere. Again *you have no right to enter my property* - meet my conditions or go elsewhere.

The issue is that the government grants a liability waiver to those removing my sidearm, be it government or commercial property owners. Why should they not have a greater duty to protect my life, having improperly banished my sidearm?

1: They did not improperly banish your sidearm. You voluntarily disarmed because they have something you want and are willing to set aside that right to enter their property to transact for that thing you desire. You can also choose to transact elsewhere - especially in today's society you have ample other venues to choose from - including, as you pointed out, online.

2: I agree with you that the government has no business inserting themselves into the matter, it is in my opinion effectively a back-handed method of infringement of that right. You choose to deny RKBA on your property? Fine - but that should in no way affect your liability. If you actually have the courage of your convictions, then you don't need the support of government to stand upon them.

Just as your right to free speech ends at my property line, so does your right to keep and bear arms. And as with free speech, I may grant you the privilege - but it is mine to grant or not when on my property.

Respectfully disagree. Yes, I have a duty to exercise my Rights responsibly, lest I impose on the Rights of others. But you can't accept my presence and banish my RKBA and/or my free speech. I can't walk into your showroom and begin shouting baseball statistics or something odious. I can't hand out coupons for Burger King in the McDonald's lobby. So, if you want to say that I'm not an absolutist on the basis of responsibility, ok. Either way, a commercial property owner has no ability to strip me of my rights when I'm doing nothing wrong, and even when I am, there's due process and such.

Again, and again, and again: a property owner has (or should have) absolute control over their property. You have no right to enter unless you meet their conditions. If you *voluntarily* set aside your RKBA or right of free speech because transacting business with the property owner is more important to you, then, that is your choice.

Frankly, I find your willingness to use the force of government to take away property owner's rights abhorrent and I'd have never expected that from you of all people.

That is my point, I'm not taking away a property owner's Rights.

Yes! Yes you are! You want to use the force of government to strip me of the fundamental right to control my private property as I see fit.

I'm upholding property owners rights to self-defense.

I suspect you meant something different than what you wrote, otherwise this makes no sense to me.

Furthermore, the proper role of government is to use force in upholding Rights:

2. The people create their governments primarily to serve one supreme purpose: to "secure" the safety and enjoyment of their God-given, unalienable rights. To make and keep them secure is government's primary function and chief reason for existence, according to the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

(I recognize that civil government is corrupt and am being idealistic, granted)

Again, I strongly disagree. You say the role of government is to uphold our rights, yet you want to use government to strip a right from property owners under the guise of a right you do not possess - that is, you have no right to enter that property without the consent of and under the conditions imposed by the property owner.

I fail to see how a commercial property owner can separate the person from the inanimate object, assuming some type of irresponsible exercise of Negative Rights that impede the owners ability to conduct commerce. People have a right to said object, specifically enumerated by multiple constitutions. There's a certain amount of behavior and decorum that goes into being in public, as with your First Amendment example (obscene T-shirts, hat symbols, etc).

Once more: You have no right to enter another's private property. Your right to possess an object does not give you the right to bring it onto another's property - regardless of how well-protected that right is *from government infringement*.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on government commercial property rights and how they differ from private commercial property rights, over and above the private commercial property owner's rights superseding personal ownership of one's body and RKBA.

I don't see how I can express it more clearly than I already have above. Unless we can agree that private property rights reign supreme and that a person has no right to enter another's property without their consent and unless they meet the conditions of entry imposed by the property owner, then I fear there isn't much we can discuss.