I understand that the political process is futile and that Congress sits as trustees … , operating [essentially] as agents for the international banking cartel. But how does one act commercially to prevent such government meddling as this “gun grab” activity? Does one send notice to all agencies that they are no longer a Citizen of the United States and as such “no longer request their services as ‘regulator’”? Just how does one operate commercially in such a situation where the government suddenly decides one is a criminal for simply possession of a rifle? [comment - More Legal Reality]
It's an excellent question (set of questions), part of which we can answer in this generic setting.
The thing about the gun grab concept is this. The system has two choices: (1) sucker people into the very same type of commercial relation that exists in the "transportation" setting or (2) commit Treason by going to war against their own people.
In the "transportation" setting, which is one of the concepts that the Supreme Court definitely had in mind in ruling on the Heller case, saying that there are justifications for regulations regarding possession and use of weapons, what the "driver" or "operator" does is agree to be disarmed. It's part and parcel of the "license" agreement for that line of commerce. Thus, that form of "disarmament" is 100% voluntary, for "no one" may be compelled into any form or type or line of commerce at any time for any reason. It may "feel" compelled, but, in the eyes of the law, it's 100% voluntary.... click below flag for link to Dennis on RTR.org, full Dennis Ing blog.
It's an excellent question (set of questions), part of which we can answer in this generic setting.
The thing about the gun grab concept is this. The system has two choices: (1) sucker people into the very same type of commercial relation that exists in the "transportation" setting or (2) commit Treason by going to war against their own people.
In the "transportation" setting, which is one of the concepts that the Supreme Court definitely had in mind in ruling on the Heller case, saying that there are justifications for regulations regarding possession and use of weapons, what the "driver" or "operator" does is agree to be disarmed. It's part and parcel of the "license" agreement for that line of commerce. Thus, that form of "disarmament" is 100% voluntary, for "no one" may be compelled into any form or type or line of commerce at any time for any reason. It may "feel" compelled, but, in the eyes of the law, it's 100% voluntary.... click below flag for link to Dennis on RTR.org, full Dennis Ing blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment