Wolfman, I answered your question about 4 times, and you never did comprehend the answer once. I clearly laid out to you how hypocritical your stance on the 2nd Amendment was to your example of the 1st Amendment. You never got it and I don't expect you will.
Well, just to review, the question was: If you ask someone to shut up on your property does that mean you are against free speech?
In case you missed it, that wasn't an essay question. It is a simple "Yes" or "No".
I am no more against the 1st Amendment than you. I will not regulate anyone's speech until it starts to harm others in a malignant way.
Well, there I think we could dissect an answer. Let's see, it appears there are circumstances in which you would ask someone to shut up on your property (like he starts talking about the things he would like to do with your wife -- no malignant harm there, just irritating). And, your answer seems to be "No", that just because you restrict his right to speak on your property doesn't mean you are against the First Amendment and his right to exercise free speech anywhere else. Likewise with other amendments.
I also respect 2nd Amendment rights in the same way.
Well, unfortunately, if you wait for the "malignant harm" from guns someone could be dead or seriously injured, rather than just insulted.
You are being stubborn and not listening. Your eyes are obviously shut and you don't want to see your hypocricy.
No, I listened to everything you said and responded to every bit of it. I don't think you did the same.
You are restricting the right to keep and bear arms on your property based on the belief that other people are incapable of being trusted on your property until proven otherwise all so you can reduce liability and protect yourself.
IIRC, I also asked if we should assume that, just because they had the money to buy a weapon, they are automatically a safe gun-handler. Is that a good assumption- the guy has a gun, therefore he must be safe with it? Or have you ever seen someone who had a gun but really didn't handle it correctly?
I didn't catch your answer.
It has been explained to you several times that this same way of thinking is exactly the type of thinking the anti-gun crowd has. You disguise your motives behind your fear or lawyers and Tort Law and try to justify your fear of other firearms owners based on those fears. you have yet to explain how your thinking is any different than the anti-gun crowd except to state the obvious, "It is my property and I can do what I want."
Well, as we can see, just because you restrict someone's right of free speech on your property (for example, I doubt you would let someone talk about what a nice booty your wife has and what he would like to do with it), doesn't mean you are against the First Amendment.
Likewise, just because you restrict someone's right to sacrifice goats or dance with snakes on your property doesn't mean that you are against their right to practice religion. (Or would you allow someone to sacrifice goats and dance with snakes on your property?)
In other words, there could be any number of rights that people have that you wouldn't want them to exercise on your property. That doesn't mean you are against their right to do it elsewhere, does it?
Then in a weak attempt to justify your actions you go on the offense and ask if I am anti-First Amendment if I asked someone to leave my property for using vulgar language.
No, I didn't go on any "offense". I just asked a directly parallel question about rights guaranteed in the Amendment just prior to the Second Amendment.
This example is an excellent example of how liberty minded inviduals expect others to be of good moral character and trustworthy until they prove otherwise. You do not persecute and take away an individuals rights until they prove they are incapable of handling the responsibility.
Let's just note (again) that those rights apply to your relationship to the Federal Government. If you are on someone else's property, the only thing you really have a right to do without their permission is leave.
In other words, I completely support that person's first amendment rights, UNTIL they do something to warrant otherwise, like endanger the life of another or ruin someone's pursuit of happiness in a reasonable way like using vulgar language around my kids.
Well, your timing may be slightly different, but the result is the same. At some point, you will restrict their constitutional rights on your property. (As near as I can tell, the Second Amendment doesn't restrict that right even for negligent handling of firearms, so you would still be restricting their rights beyond what is mentioned in the Constitution even if you took a gun away because they clearly demonstrated themselves to be unsafe.) As I think we have established, that doesn't mean that you are against them fully exercising their rights off your property.
Ok, I just read up on tort law. Answer me a few questions.
If you are going to be held liable for not disarming your guests, the plantiff must prove that "A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances." So under the reasonably prudent person assumption, do you have examples of cases where it has been found that a reasonable person disarms all guests of their legally possessed firearms? In order for me to be held liable, it must be proven that reasonable persons would disarm their guests who legally carry firearms onto their property right? So tell us of some examples of where this has been found by a court of law.
No, I don't think I have any particular cases involving guns, but the principles are the same. And, without checking the books myself, I think you got the standard there correctly. And I am reasonably sure that, if someone did get shot, then you are already at the stage where you should have done something reasonable to prevent it, and didn't.
Afterall ,Whether a defendant has a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm is a question decided by the court, not the jury.
The court may determine whether the duty exists (that's a matter of law), but the jury determines what is "reasonable" to insure safety (that's a matter of fact). In this case, as I explained, the plaintiff's attorney is going to argue that the "reasonable" thing to do would have been to ask the person to lock up the weapon. Keeping in mind that, if they got to court, then something bad already happened, the plaintiff's attorney is going to argue that the "reasonable" thing to do would have been to lock up the weapon upon entry. As I said, that's going to be hard argument to beat, simply because you didn't lock it up and (obviously, because you are in court) something bad did happen.
Over time, courts have developed numerous rules creating and limiting a person's duty to others, and sometimes duties are established or limited by statute. Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty depends upon the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff.
It is pretty well-established that a property owner has a duty to invited guests.
So again, in order to justify your fears, I would like to know of some cases where a person invited to a social gathering is dependent upon the host to disarm lawfully armed citizens as part of the duty to protect the plantiff from harm.
I don't know of any particular cases that match this scenario, but cases are decided all the time without a particular case that exactly matched the current scenario. But, it is pretty obvious what arguments the plaintiff's attorney would make in such a case, and it is pretty obvious how a jury would probably decide the issue. Juries tend to side with the injured party, for one thing.
Now people come to your house with an openly carried firearm. You tell them, "You are welcome to carry your sidearm as long as you understand that unless you life is in immediate danger, you are to leave it holstered. If you are going to drink, you must go put your gun in your car and give me the keys to your car as well." Wouldn't that pretty much limit your liability?
No, probably not. If something bad happens, the plaintiff's attorney is certainly going to argue that you should have done something besides counsel them (obviously, since something bad happened despite your counseling them) and the jury is probably going to buy that argument.
. He was never invited back though.