[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some points:

1. Religion is not innate but a free choice.

2. I have yet to see a business owner protest on property rights issues the need to have a toilet for staff and customers or the need to keep the food at a safe temperature.

3. If there is one thing that is innate, it is the right to protect your life. In another debate on shooting to protect your property, I summarized the common legal view that the bad guy's right to life trumped your right to protect your property. That is unless protecting your property also entailed a real and immediate threat to life

4. So why is it that the property owner, who accepts that he can't have unsafe food in his restaurant, not accept that you have the right to protect yourself? Life trumps property.

5. Fiddletown is correct. Businesses feared the liability risk of a defensive shooting on their property somehow costing them a buck. They don't give a whatever about civil liberties in most contexts. It is only the money, but they use it to get the business is my castle crowd all hot and bothered. Suckered.

6. Property bans were and are an explicit strategy by antis to make carry such a pain to be useless.

7. Why do property owners want my taxes to protect them with police, etc. if they deny me the right to protect themselves? BTW, property owners means to me those who open a business to the public. Protect yourself on your own dime.

8. I totally agree that the rationale that prevents discrimination on race, religion, national origin, etc. clearly should include the right to protect oneself.

9. Legislation is needed for such protection. In TX, we passed the parking lot bill with businesses screaming all over. Businesses that fired their American works and brought in folks from overseas to replace them - all hail their respect for American rights.