When Private Property Owners decide to do Business with the Public, they invite the Public to come onto their Private Property to transact Business and therefore create a Public Accommodation in some shape or form. The Private Property Owners give up some rights to Manage their property as they see fit for this Public Accommodation.
That's an interesting theory. Allowing bona fide customers to come onto a property to transact business is not creating a public accommodation. A true public accommodation would be a national forest, owned by the government, a theoretically-public entity, run with public funds, and open to all the public for any lawful purpose.
One such area is in for Racial Limitations, where Blacks were denied access at one time but are not today.
That was a blatantly unconstitutional ruling, as any true scholar of the document will tell you.
If Private Property Owners truly had the Rights you purport, they would not have to ask anyone to leave, they could simply deprive them of the Right to Life at any point and for any reason they determine.
Lol, no. Where did I ever say private property owners could deprive anyone of rights? All I said is that if you feel that your rights are being violated by the conditions set by the property owner, you are free to leave, and remove the violation; therefore, you aren't truly being deprived of rights. Government and government employees are the only entities that can deprive a citizen of his rights, because they are the only entities with whom a citizen is [unfortunately] forced to interact.
I also never said that property owners could shoot people for any reason. I did say that private property owners should be able to use whatever force necessary to eject interlopers after said interlopers have been made aware they are not welcome.
There must be a balance between the Rights of a Person and Private Property Rights, else we have nothing better than what was in place during the time of Lord and Vassals.
Wrong. Back in feudal times, vassals did not have the option to leave the authority of their feudal lord, making their situation analogous to our own vis-a-vis the government. You do, at all times, have the ability to leave the authority of a private property owner and reassert your full and free constitutional rights simply by LEAVING the private property.
Example:
The Constitution forbids the government from restricting your freedom of speech. When it comes to clothing, courts have generally ruled that you can wear whatever you want in public, regardless of how offensive it may be. Now, if you go to a nice restaurant with a black-tie dress code wearing your "F*** America" t-shirt, they are fully within their rights to throw you out. The restaurant is not a public accommodation open to just anyone for any purpose. It is for certain members of the public (those who can afford the meal) to conduct business (buying the meal) while abiding by the requirements of the property owner (dress code). You also have to obey their other regulations, like not bringing in your own alcohol (or paying a fee to do so), or refraining from loud, vulgar language.
The above analogy can be equally applied to the Second Amendment and any other business.
