I guess you want to differentiate between the amount of power the government exerts over a "person" and the amount it exerts over a business entity, specifically the corporation. Aside from the weird parallel here (on a conservative forum) in the way leftists view corporations, I have a couple points of disagreement.
First, increase government power over business entities and you risk government taking that same power for use over individuals.
Second, while a corporation may not be a "person," it most certainly is "people," or a group of persons, a group of individuals, the officers and the stockholders. I don't think you can justify saying that just because people band together in an organization, be it business or otherwise, it is OK to grant government more power over them than you would grant it over an individual. I think that's unAmerican.
"It is absolutely unreasonable to believe that EVERYONE could choose not to work for a corporation. Some could, but if everyone tried, the entire economy would fail.
Well, you have just illustrated rather clearly the power ordinary citizens can exert over corporations without resorting to increasing the power of their rulers, should they so decide.
"I find no compelling reason to spare corporations from legal constraints on their abilities to reduce the freedom of the people. If corporations were forbidden to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I see no reason to believe that the economic success of corporations would in any way be negatively impacted."
As Exsoldier so eloquently pointed out, your freedom to swing your fist stops when it reaches my nose. In this case when you enter the property of others. RKBA is not being infringed since it doesn't extend to private property of someone else without their consent. However, I agree with you that a law such as the one this thread discusses would have no adverse effect on economic success. It does, IMO constitute an adverse effect on our freedom.
BTW, the limit to liability for corporations is proper IMO. You can go after the corporation's complete assets in a suit. Remember, that means that you are not going after the assets of an inanimate "entity," but the shares in that company of all the stockholders who have risked their money in investment. A risk that provides those jobs that we were talking about. The limit to liability in suing corporations is that you cannot also sue for assets belonging to the stockholders that are held outside the corporation, such as their shares in other corporations, their homes, etc. Seems pretty reasonable to me. However, there is one way in which corporations are less protected than individuals, that's taxation. Profits made by corporations are taxed 3 times: first, by taxing corporate profits, secondly by taxing those profits again when they are paid out to shareholders as dividends, and thirdly, as capital gains when the shares are sold.
Yes.
And for a real PERSON such taxation would be a violation of that persons equal treatment under the law. Corporate law permits this multiple taxation as a benefit to the public in exchange for the benefits of corporation. The tremendous success of such laws reflects the wisdom of the law. To the extent that there are any "private property" rights conveyed to corporations, that too is completely subject to corporate law. I see no problem whatever in changing corporate law so as to prohibit the widespread infringement of the right to keep and bear arms which has been occurring as a result of corporate action.
Consider the Supreme Court decision in Brown versus Board of Education. This landmark case struck down a legislatively created scheme which established "separate but equal" public accomodations for blacks and whites.
The justification for striking down such laws is that the "separate" treatment ALWAYS resulted in an "unequal" treatment. That was the true effect of the laws and nothing was ever going to change that.
Similarly, the effect of corporate law is to create legal entities with enormous financial power and absolutely no incentive to respect the right to keep and bear arms. The "effect" of corporate laws is disarmament. Can you name even half a dozen of the many tens of thousands of US corporations which permit firearms in their parking lots? Corporations do not NEED Second Amendment protection because they are a creature of the very government whose tyrannical tendencies is the object of the Second Amendment. If the government ceases to exist, the corporations cease to exist.