Comment: yeah, but from his past works, statements & interviews,

(See in situ)


yeah, but from his past works, statements & interviews,

it's clear that he's speaking strictly within the confines of established 'legal'-doctrines, not lawful doctrines, as it stands.

Not: what is just, right, or what he himself personally prefers.

Philosophically he's clear: his position is as same as Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, as he articulated on the CRA: a private property is private property is private property!

Well, it SHOULD be, IF we actually lived in a nation with people who actually understand natural rights and what actual property ownership means.

The judge knows that factually speaking, as it stands in the bastardized legal bastion that Amerika has become, you don't really 'own' own your property when just because you open your place of biz to 'public' foot traffic, govt terrorists delude that they can dictate a, b, c, to their own citizen-employers, no less.

It's the same nuanced distinction that Rand tried to articulate, when Madcow intentionally ambushed Rand on the night of his primary win, where Rand rightfully assumed from all his past cordial dealings with Madcow (not to mention the fact that he in fact was able to declare his Senate run on her show, mainly due to the good friendly rapport his father had built with Madcow over the years, PRE-oBUSHma days) that as an Oxford-grad, he could actually have a nuanced political discussion on air with her, without her faking 'astonished'-reaction faces and cutting him off and badgering him repeatedly solely for ratings and pretending to be outraged.

Of course, had Rand known that he'd be entering enemy turf, even after staying up all night post-hectic primary win day with series of interviews back to back, he could have bluntly flipped the question back to Madcow: SHOULD a black restauranteur be forced to serve a neo-Nazi who didn't just come to his restaurant to eat, but to make a scene while preaching his racist shiit in front of his other customers?

That would've STF her up good.

Though, truthfully, even with corporatist statist 'laws' banning discrimination, ANYONE can come up with multitudes of legal ways to discriminate against ANYONE, regardless of what the 'law' says.

Ask any bar owner. Like any and all 'laws' that seek to re-direct human behavior, it doesn't work, much like gun-control 'laws.'

Plus, if I were on Madcow's show that night, I would've flipped the question back to her: how her entire adult pedigree stems from the fact that her education had been financed by an institutionally racist organization: the Cecil Rhodes foundation, not to mention her 'blood-money' salary checked dipped in bloods of innocents worldwide: working for GE, a war-WHORE contractor.

Back to the Judge and 2A: from observing his past and present works, it's clear that he philosophically knows, understands and believes that in an ideal world, yes, the private property owner SHOULD have the right to dictate whether his/her customers can be armed or not.

But as it stands today? Not so much.

That said, in many free-er states, they understand such distinctions; as a 'legal-bridge,' in many such states especially west of the Mississippi, stipulate that IF biz owners are gonna ban their customers from being armed, that they post visible signs or in some cases, even accommodate with secure storage.

Yup, be as we all know, we've got WAYS to go in this country on building a generational culture of liberty where almost all Americans truly understand the fundamental concept of what self-ownership, private property rights, and voluntary compacts and social affiliations truly mean.

So r3VOL, do your part and go make MILLIONS of 'liberty babies!'

LOL =)

Get it on suga!


http://youtu.be/BKPoHgKcqag

PS. LOL. Yup, I do realize: I went from answering Judge's take on 2A & private property, to Madcow, Rand, then to Marvin Gaye.

LMFAO!

The human mind: it's a wonderfully weird thingy xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul