What is being "preserved"?
What does a private proprietorship gain [in a parking lot] by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?
Look at what you just said here. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution.
Hardly. You cannot deny the 2nd is an individual right, to be protected by our Constitution.
Let's say you own a store. And some ANSWER types come into your store and start chanting anti-American slogans. Using your logic, if you kick them out of the store, private property, you would be acting against our Constitutional mandate that freedom of speech shall not be outlawed.
Get a grip. I'm not using that "logic", I'm defending our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars.
The Bill of Rights is a prohibition against government action - not individual action.
Look at what you just said here. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution, which is clearly set up to protect individual rights from infringements of any type from any source.
Private individuals and companies have the right to dictate who can use their property and how it can be used.
Within reason, of course, but neither private individuals or companies have the right to violate individual rights while "dictating".
If you don't like their terms, don't work for them and don't give them business.
Paraphrased: 'If you don't like our Constitution, feel free to leave the country.'
But you cannot take your rights and force them down someone else's throats at the expense of their Constitutional property rights.
Nor can you take your property rights and force them down someone else's throats at the expense of their Constitutional right to have arms in their vehicle .
Your claim that The Bill of Rights is not a prohibition on individual action is belied by the fact that we are all obligated to support & defend the law; - the law of the land as in Article VI.
All officials are sworn to defend it, as are all naturalized citizens. Those of us born here have that same obligation.
If anyone disagrees, they are free to leave.
Once again, there is no point debating further as long as you show such disregard for the nature of the Constutution. It is a constraint against government, not individuals. I think liberal viewpoints are wrong. But they have the right to express them, and also exclude them from their property. It's that simple.
That is EXACTLY the logic you are using - the right to exercise YOUR rights at the expense of someone ELSE'S rights.