36 votes

US citizens (actually have an absolute) Right To Bear Arms...

I saw the post about "giving up" your right to bear arms when you enter into a "contract" to drive. I have to respectfully disagree. Your RIGHT is an absolute right which (1) you do not have to power to "give up" as it is granted from your Creator, and (2) any "contract" has to have the terms fully disclosed and you have to UNDERSTAND those terms in order for the contract to legally stand.

Sorry, I did "agree" that I'm a "US Citizen" (whatever that is) and I DID NOT agree to any disclosed strings attached that say I will relinquish ANYTHING. Any "contract" saying otherwise is null and void for failure to disclose.

ALL my rights are fully mine and I carry them with me wherever I travel, disputes by so-called "officials" to the contrary are not binding before my Creator...

This heading is actually misleading as it's not just "US Citizens (whatever that is) but ALL PERSONS OF HUMAN BIRTH anywhere on the planet or even off the planet who are "endowed" with rights (that means everyone...)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ChristianAnarchist's picture

Rules are for the "little people"

Actually they DON'T follow the rules... " Presidents issuing "Executive Orders" are a violation of the rules (as are "Signing Statements"). CONgress passing bills without the 3 days they SAID they were going to allow us little people to read is against the rules. Spending money they don't have is against the rules. Convicting Irwin Schiff without letting him put on a defence was against the rules. Passing fiat money for REAL money is against the rules. I could go on and on, but I think any who really want to open their eyes can see this. The "rules" are for suckers. THEY don't and won't follow them. Follow your procedures and wave your paper in their faces when they come to confiscate your guns, you'll see how much good it does you then...

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

I said you cannot "opt out"..

My statement was that you cannot "Opt-Out" of the influence of the mob. They don't have rules and if they do, they ignore them at their whim. EDUCATION works only to the extent that you can EDUCATE a sufficient portion of the people to realize that the "mob's" authority is FICTION. Once people realize this its like the Wizard of Oz when the screen is pulled back and they realize it's all a sham. Ron Paul tries to educate people about liberty, and I also try (as I hope all of you do). When we go to them to ask "permission" to be free by following the rules of men (men who never had the authority to begin with) we have missed the point. The "point" is they have NO authority to infringe on our rights and they need to STOP harassing us. When a sufficient number of people realize this, things will change. Until then, not so much...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Actually they do have rules

Actually they do have rules and they do follow their rules. To the majority it LOOKS like they do not follow rules, but that's because the majority does not understand how their rules work, it is ignorance that gives the appearance that they do not follow their rules. Now certainly there are INDIVIDUALS among them that violate the rules. But as a whole they do indeed make it a point to follow their rules. Agreements gives authority, and it has LONG been established in Men's law that "silence" gives your consent. If you have not notified them that you do NOT agree, then you have been SILENT, you consent.

If you receive a credit card in the mail that you did not ask for, then you take it to the store and use it, then you have consented to the FULL term of the agreement with the credit card company. It does not matter that you did not ask for the card, it does not matter that you've never read the terms of agreement. If you did not want the card then you should not have used it, and you should not have remained silent to your claim that you did not want it. You now own the burdens of the agreement because you took advantage of the benefit.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Mafia opt out?

One cannot "opt-out" of the influence of the mafia mob. There are no magic words that will make them behave (look at the Drudge headline about the head thug using "Executive Orders" to get his gun control). What I'm hoping for is educating a greater number to the realization that the "mafia" does not have "authority" to do the lawless things they do. When enough people realize they are just thugs with guns we can stand together and challenge them. If we get large enough numbers, we will win simply because they will not be able to deal with us all. Indeed if we get huge numbers to realize and challenge them, there will not even be much resistance and we could (hopefully) get rid of them without violence...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Now that IS funny. First you

Now that IS funny. First you make several post with the basic undertone, "If you just SAY you are free then you are", and then you follow it with "one cannot "opt-out" of the influence of the mafia mob".

It is true, you cannot opt out of the Mafia's mob, but you can opt out of the influence of the US government's mob. Title 8 USC para 1481 is THEIR procedure for doing so. Its all "legal" and takes you out of their jurisdiction. Their statutes, including gun control laws, no longer apply to such an Man.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

lol

Making sense isn't an Anarchists strong point.

You can't opt out when somebody CHOOSES to use violence to take what they covet, and government isn't the source of injustice, it's mans answer to it, and the same thing that causes us to create governments is the same thing that destroys them; our covetous nature.

Eventually government force becomes the weapon itself, a tool of injustice and oppression serving mans covetous nature.

"If you just SAY you are free then you are"

It's akin to trying to snap our fingers to make injustice disappear. It's a kind of nihilism where liberty, justice, truth, and freedom no longer have meaning or any objective basis in reality.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Someone loves to use namecalling..

Don't even know if you are directing your comments at me, but if you are, I sure don't have multiple accounts. I sure don't have time to deal with such nonsense. I am simply pointing out the logical progression of "authority" and it proves that none of these thugs (lawyers, judges, CONgressmen or presidents) have ANY! You cannot show me a progression of authority from our Creator to any government "official" to any police "officer". They have no authority. They only have the BELIEF that they have been endowed with power from their false god. They are the "Federal Mafia" (thanks Irwin). The Mafia does not worry about "authority", they only use force and they will kill or maim anyone who gets in their way.

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Constitutions don't bind..

Doesn't matter how many "Constitutions" there are, NONE of them bind or restrict rights because they don't have the AUTHORITY to do so. Rights either come from our Creator or (if you don't believe) they exist by nature of our humanity. EITHER WAY no piece of paper can change what your rights are. The founders of this (fiction) USA stated it clearly. They did not "grant" rights, they merely acknowledged them and stated that they would try to prevent (men acting as agents of) their monster fiction from VIOLATING them.

Beware the cult of "government"...

Hey SHILL

How come you keep bumping your own DIS-INFO post with all your multiple accounts? Are you trying to bury my comment where I call you out for LYING in order to try and keep people away from the TRUTH?

They do not need to go to the voting booth to restore the republic... all they need to do is OPT-OUT of the democracy!

http://www.dailypaul.com/268762/us-citizens-have-no-constitu...

How does one Opt-Out?

of Democracy?

Are you talking about buying local, not paying taxes, work for trade etc etc -- or are you talking about the "American Sovereign / Common Law" movement?

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Do you have to study huge volumes of "law" to be free?

Man I hate getting involved in tons of legal jargon and jumping into law books to find the "magic definition" of some word or phrase. I don't believe that FREE MEN need to bother. I am free by the nature that I claim to be free. You are free as well if you claim it. Really, who gives a DA*M what these stinking lawyers write in their books?? I don't. I spent a great many years trying to decipher the "correct understanding" and finally determined that its ALL BS!! If you claim that you can only "exercise" or "claim" your rights when you study some arcane words written by some idiots in the past, then you are claiming that people of simple mind or limited intelligence CAN NEVER BE FREE!... I claim the opposite. If you CLAIM TO BE FREE, YOU ARE !!

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

The "date" blacks had the "right" to own a gun..

The day the first black person was born...

Blacks (like all of us) have always had the "right" to arms. They are not always EDUCATED to know they have the right. If you keep people ignorant of their rights, they can be suppressed. EDUCATION is the key. If you teach all men they have the right to arms, they will carry arms. In the days of slavery, SOME slaves realized they had the right to bear arms and they managed to get their hands on them and they "exercised" their right. When these men exercised those rights, the other men who claimed them as property were rightfully SCARED !!

Beware the cult of "government"...

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Rights exist for all.

Rights are not "solid" things that you can touch, but they exist none the less by nature of the existence of humans. I like to use "endowed by our Creator" because the "Creator" is something most people can agree on no matter what "religion" (another fiction created by man) you claim to belong to. Even if you do not believe in a "Creator" you can believe that rights are part of your humanity and exist for everyone. If one does not believe this, then the only other option that I can think of is "might makes right". If you believe this, than murder theft and slavery can all be justified by the strongest.

"God made men, but Colt made the equal"...

Beware the cult of "government"...

How long have people been making the "rights" argument?

....and how close has it ever gotten anyone to free-market consumer-sovereignty?

That's what I thought.

It's an empty argument as it has never produced results.

The creator does not bind the "rights" (created by men) in a court of law or in the court-of-nature (for that matter).

If a bear munches down on you the so called "right" to life is gone.

I don't like the word "right" -- at all, it's like pixie dust, born from magic and superstition and has not afforded (once ever in all human history) a perfect guarantee or an absolute justification.

The closest I'll give you is you have a "right" to self-defense -- If you cannot defend yourself (property, assets, life, health, purchasing choices) then in a free-society no one "has to" come to your aid.

Rights in the legal sense are granted by an authority and upheld (depending on the age and circumstance) at X% of the time.

Those "rights" can be suspended.

Show me one right that has not been ignored or suspended or that the rocks rose up in defense of -- you can't. Because the absolutist (worded by absolution-seekers) "right" does not exist. No matter how wealthy or poor. For no animal or plant -- for no ice cap nor polar bear -- for no moon, star, or planet.

Your understanding of rights

reminds me of the history teacher in "Starship Troopers" - it is also incorrect.

A right is a liberty that no man can rightfully take away, unless you voluntarily forfeit it (for instance, you try to kill someone, they kill you). A man's rights end where another's begin, of course.

In other words, the concept of rights is absolutely necessary for freedom. Because we've never had perfect freedom, I can say the same as you about ANYTHING not leading us towards freedom. However, an understanding of rights got us as close as we've ever come.

Your understanding of "rights" reminds me of the Flying

Spaghetti Monster -- equally imaginary.

Let me disagree with you in the simplest of ways:

1) When could blacks finally own guns?

2) When could blacks, indians, women finally vote?

3) When you say "no man can rightfully take away, unless you voluntarily forfeit it" were those rights guaranteed for blacks, indians, and women -- in 1790 or anytime between 1860?

Give dates when the above became "rights for all" -- a year.

For me the conversation about "rights" is fantasy -- it does not lead to liberty.

If we had a free-society it would be built on consumer-sovereignty (as Mises said) not on how many, if any, guns we owned.

You "can" protect yourself -- You "can" also suck at defending yourself. There are no guarantees.

Non-guarantee-ism is the whole basis of a free-society -- so why predicate a free-society conversations based on guarantees of "rights"

It's just all silly.

It's Founding Father Fluff
---Washing, Adams, and Jefferson ALL-TO-THE-ONE circumvented the Constitution (same as Lincoln just regarding less-than freedom to all type diplomacy).

And yet

it still got us closer to liberty than anything ever has. Did I say I agreed with the infringement of rights? No.

Every human being has, and has always had, these rights. It is, was, and always will be wrong for anyone to infringe upon said rights. Rights are based off of morality, and provide the only foundation for liberty (I can only assume your undefined consumer sovereignty equates to "whoever has the money calls the shots"/Ayn Rand-esque self-centeredness).

Of course, you might not believe in an objective right and wrong, in which case you're not worth talking to.

No it wasn't, not for women, blacks, indians

Asians, jews, catholics, and poor whites.

But it was awesome for wealthy wasp men, whose fathers were favored by the king or who benefited by serving the interest of those who at one point served the king.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Where's the authority??

All this talk of "citizens" and "government" is all based upon FICTION. Of course most of you understand that corporations are fictions at law. Most of you also understand that the USA is a corporate fiction as well. Where I think that you go wrong is to "believe" that any fiction can EVER have true authority over you, a creation of God. It's not that you've been tricked into signing some vague document that "gives" these fellow creations of God "authority" over you, it's the BELIEF that they have any authority at all !!!
THEY DON'T !! Now here is where many get confused regarding the word "authority" and the use of force by other "equal" creatures of God over you (an equal under God). A fiction can NEVER have true authority over a creation of God. It's the BELIEF that this fiction has authority that empowers OTHER MEN to use violence over men who want to live free (as is God's will). THE FACT that these other men use force is not PROOF that they have authority...

Beware the cult of "government"...

it never fails

over and they don't get it. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A US CITIZEN AND A US citizen. Get it? see the capital C and the lower case c? The first ten amendments to the constitution used a capital C for the word Citizen. The fourteenth amendment created a new for of citizen with a different legal standing then that of a capital C Citizen.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

No, I'm not a "BAR ATTORNEY" either...

It's amazing how some people seem to think they know someone based on what they write. No, you got it WAY wrong. I'm certainly NOT a "BAR ATTORNEY" with all caps or otherwise. After playing with the "straw man" argument for several years and seeing many people I know hurt trying to use those arguments, I came to the TRUTH that we live in ANARCHY (and as a Christian, I've used the label "Christian Anarchist" ever since. THERE IS NO LAW! These thugs we have labeled "judges", "officers", "CONgressmen", and others do what they want when they want and the only thing that constrains them is FEAR that We The People will rise up against them...

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." V

Beware the cult of "government"...

CHILL, people!

Everyone is saying almost the same thing.
The OP is correct, the contract is not valid. There was no full disclosure. However, if you claim to be a "US citizen" then you have not quite figured out the whole puzzle. It is at the Federal level that the scam plays out.
When you absently mindedly signed things to get a license, a permit, a whatever, from the government, YOU were negligent. However, if you HAD read it, you would find that your signature indicates you both read and understood the document. YOU have done damage, and you need to remedy that by voiding such existing contracts and avoiding them in the future. Unless and until you do that, you will be eaten alive in courts. That is what vinceable is trying to tell you, that you need to get your papers in order, and learn the language of the courts (Black's Law dictionary) BEFORE you find yourself in front of a judge or jury.
And vince, not everyone is a BAR member... you are arguing with a guy down there who pretty much agrees with you.
These contracts EXIST with YOUR SIGNATURE ON THEM. If you do not declare them void, the courts will treat them as valid.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

the only problem is that the

the only problem is that the contract is enforced as good until you bring it up that it's not valid.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Are you still a human being if you are a "US Citizen"?

I no longer spend much time reading legal jargon because it's pretty much BS. I use simple reasoning to examine positions put before me. One position is that if you claim to be a "US Citizen" you don't have rights that someone who just claims to be a person does (or human or whatever term you want to use). OK so lets say I've made a statement on some form that I'm a "US Citizen". Did I suddenly STOP being a human being created by God? If not, then ALL the rights God granted me are still mine. Indeed, a political prisoner in a camp in (the geographical area known as) North Korea is STILL created by God and STILL has all his rights that he was created with. THERE ARE GOONS who are VIOLATING those rights, and he is within his rights to kill them to exercise his violated rights... (success not guaranteed).

Beware the cult of "government"...

When the birth certificate is

When the birth certificate is created you are BOTH a natural man AND a person:

"A persona (plural personae or personas), in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word is derived from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask.[citation needed] The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon). Its meaning in the latter Roman period changed to indicate a "character" of a theatrical performance or court of law, when it became apparent that different individuals could assume the same role, and legal attributes such as rights, powers, and duties followed the role. The same individuals as actors could play different roles, each with its own legal attributes, sometimes even in the same court appearance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

It is from "persona" that we get the english word "person". At birth your parents give you 2 names (some people are only given one name, some people more that 2). Let's say they give you the name John and Paul. Then you INHERIT the Family name. Let's say that name is Smith.

First name is John, Last name is Paul, (FAMILY NAME) of the House of Smith. John Paul of the House of Smith. On the Birth Certificate this becomes first name John, MIDDLE NAME Paul, LAST NAME Smith. This is the creation of the LEGAL NAME, John Paul Smith. The Legal name IS the person. So the natural Man is ALSO the Natural PERSON. 2 things at the same time. One of nature, one of a Legal Creation. This natural man has all the rights given by God, but the natural person has only those rights granted by the authority that has jurisdiction. In statutes and in a court of law, it is ONLY the natural person that is addressed. The courts and statutes have no jurisdiction over the natural man. The judge calls on John Paul Smith, John Paul Smith answers, and thereby jurisdiction has been established in the court.

"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee ."

No longer shall you be called John Paul of the House Smith, but your name will be John Paul Smith: for we have made you a person in a great nation of slaves.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Agreed it is BS

It is not about whether it is BS or not BS it is clearly BS that has been used to control us and turn us into human resources and mere economic units 24/7. It is about pointing out the BS to people who do not realize the BS that is going on. Once they realize how all of this BS is being applied and used to control them they are better informed on how to deal with it in a more civilized manner than to pick up a gun and start killing people.

I've been in the courts... if you listen to my talkshoe you will hear I've "done battle" with a judge. I take issue with your post because you are trying to take things that are facts (use of words) and playing to (knowing or not) the IGNORANCE of LEGAL JARGON that have kept the masses down for about as long as I can remember anyway.

Mainly it's about presumption... and it's about contracts... written, verbal or otherwise. It's about how BARFLIES practically get away with murder shielded by LIMITED LIABILITY while the man on the street is there looking to be FULLY responsible for his actions.

If that's not bad enough, the STATE can access unlimited resources... personnel etc in order to conduct their terror campaign until you either submit or rebut the presumptions of the sovereign of the court that YOU ARE NOT SOVEREIGN - meaning - your authority is the Creator and you cannot serve two masters.

Who cares if I am a people or a citizen or an American or a person or whatever you want to call me?

What delegated powers do you have to use some artificial BS to assert you have some kind of authority over me?

You have no delegated powers by the people to tell me or any other people how to run their lives, what I can or can not put in my body or any of that BS. Are you a public servant? If you are a public servant why do you think you could EVER have ANY authority over one of the people?

Natural Rights

Of course all human beings are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.." the real issue is in which human jurisdiction are they going to be most protected and revered. Your state nationality, the place where you were born, is a jurisdiction where they will... and must, by law. The jurisdiction of the United States national democracy, not so much.

Again,the issue is where you stand the best chance of defending those rights you claim?

Good luck in this effort, and may God be with them, who maintain their treasured US citizenship.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Let's all call each other names...

Hey, I saw where you stated "You traded your right to bear arms for a state granted privilege" and I took that to mean that your position was that you "give up" your right. If that's not what you mean, I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you. And if you think I'm a "lawyer" you are sadly mistaken (again). Some here know me as the owner of the "Ron Paul Liberty Corvette" which I created in order to counter the lack of press regarding the only one who I would consider voting for to run this fiction government we have named the "USA"...

Now, "can't we all just get along"... :)

Beware the cult of "government"...

I mean what I say...

No... you are most definitely not a "lawyer" it's very likely you are a BAR ATTORNEY.

ATTORN. In feudal law. To transfer
or turn over to another. a lord aliened
his seigniory. he might. with the consent of
the tenant, and in some cases without, attorn
or transfer the homage and service of
the latter to the alienee or new lord. Bract.
lois. Blb.82.

I would hope that folks here do not just automatically trust you because you've invoked the name of Ron Paul. When you go and basically clone my post title directly contradicting me instead of asking me questions on the same thread - that's a bit disingenuous and quite obviously divisive.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Where were you born?

Another thing is some seem to think that your "God granted" rights only apply when you were born on a certain patch of land on this planet. I say that "God granted" rights belong to EVERY HUMAN no matter where they are born. At this moment I'm writing this from China (just visiting). I maintain that I have a right to bear arms here as I do anywhere else in the universe. The problem is that here (just like at home) I need to "exercise" that RIGHT very carefully because there are goons here (just like at home) who think that I don't have that RIGHT. Remember it's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by six... (Ok, in China you would be judged by 1, but that's still better than being carried by 6).

Beware the cult of "government"...