I’m arguing for balance, not extremism on either side. That is what the law is. Balance.
It is wrong to kill. Your extreme is that it’s wrong to kill, period. But the law is balanced and has exceptions for if you are being attacked or if someone breaks into your home and so on. I only argue the same balance on this topic.
But I do have the right to come on your property if you have a connection to the public roads and no gate or lock, no sign telling people not to come, and if you have a pathway leading to your door, a door knocker or a doorbell and so on.
That is the balance. You are wrong in this regard. The balance is that you can tell me to leave your property that has all these things and I must leave. Or that you can lock your gates and put up no trespassing signs and make it obvious to not come on your property. But if you do not take those steps to make it obvious, the balance of the law determines when it is ok to enter your property and when it is not ok.
Just like the 2nd amendment doesn’t give you the right to bear arms while holding said arms aimed and ready to fire at another person. The balance is there so that you should be able to walk around with firearms without being harassed (which has been grossly abused and nearly every state is unconstitutional at this point), but not be able to threaten everyone you want with no consequence.
A business that opens its doors to the public similarly invites anyone through those doors regardless of conditions they cannot control such as race, sex, religion and so on. It might sound nice to some, to be able to bar certain groups from their businesses, however in the long run you might be the one being barred from businesses. The balance in this regard benefits everyone; as long as law and order is kept.
You have the right if I allow you the right by not putting out a no trespassing sign. I can knock on your front door and wake you up to say hi at 3am for no reason. I don't have the right to stay on your property without your permission.
You don't have the right to force me to do business with you. The 1st amendment guarantees my right to freedom of association.
"It might sound nice to some"
It is nice to have rights. Yes. And our very wise founders agreed. It's why they put the 1st amendment 1st. It's why they would shoot you in the face with a very large musket ball if you thought you could force them to bake your gay wedding cake or force them to groom your DIY tranny-vagina.
I don't recognize the unconstitutional laws that give you power over me or my private property.
So you let Pelosi and AOC decide who is a protected class and what freedoms they will or will not deign to permit you.
While arguing for big government by pointing to China as an example of how big government is bad...
You're arguing that little girls should have to look at dick in the dressing room.
I’m arguing for balance, not extremism on either side. That is what the law is. Balance.
It is wrong to kill. Your extreme is that it’s wrong to kill, period. But the law is balanced and has exceptions for if you are being attacked or if someone breaks into your home and so on. I only argue the same balance on this topic.
"That is what the law is. Balance."
No, it's not. The law is there to protect the rights of Americans. And it's not extreme to have those rights or to protect those rights.
Maybe we should redact that word "unalienable" from the Bill Of Rights, because, balance...
You don't have the right to come on my property without my permission. Period. I don't care what your skin color is or what gender you self apply.
But I do have the right to come on your property if you have a connection to the public roads and no gate or lock, no sign telling people not to come, and if you have a pathway leading to your door, a door knocker or a doorbell and so on.
That is the balance. You are wrong in this regard. The balance is that you can tell me to leave your property that has all these things and I must leave. Or that you can lock your gates and put up no trespassing signs and make it obvious to not come on your property. But if you do not take those steps to make it obvious, the balance of the law determines when it is ok to enter your property and when it is not ok.
Just like the 2nd amendment doesn’t give you the right to bear arms while holding said arms aimed and ready to fire at another person. The balance is there so that you should be able to walk around with firearms without being harassed (which has been grossly abused and nearly every state is unconstitutional at this point), but not be able to threaten everyone you want with no consequence.
A business that opens its doors to the public similarly invites anyone through those doors regardless of conditions they cannot control such as race, sex, religion and so on. It might sound nice to some, to be able to bar certain groups from their businesses, however in the long run you might be the one being barred from businesses. The balance in this regard benefits everyone; as long as law and order is kept.
You have the right if I allow you the right by not putting out a no trespassing sign. I can knock on your front door and wake you up to say hi at 3am for no reason. I don't have the right to stay on your property without your permission.
You don't have the right to force me to do business with you. The 1st amendment guarantees my right to freedom of association.
"It might sound nice to some"
It is nice to have rights. Yes. And our very wise founders agreed. It's why they put the 1st amendment 1st. It's why they would shoot you in the face with a very large musket ball if you thought you could force them to bake your gay wedding cake or force them to groom your DIY tranny-vagina.
I don't recognize the unconstitutional laws that give you power over me or my private property.