No Rings, No Drama, Just Dominion

[The Revolting Man]

Sigh. Because you don't try to understand the foundational issue. (And you won't ever listen to me anyway, but others here might.)

I might have hoped that when it came to "firearms" at least (note: that term is NOT in the Bill of Rights - it is a 'term of art,') that Zec might understand there is a difference between "de facto" Law and 'de jure.'

I can show you in genuine print that the Right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And infringed (see Webster, 1828, and law texts of the period) was the strongest prohibition the Founders could find in the English language.

But they do it anyway now. How?


FIREARMS

...armed Citizens are considered more serious.

How did a form of Government with a specific, total PROHIBITION against doing exactly what they are now doing manage somehow to acquire "jurisdiction" to do that against the ONLY type of property actually enumerated in the ENTIRE DOCUMENT about which it is said they shall NOT?

They didn't "repeal" anything!

They got there by working over time... "to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws."

Free citizens own property. Subjects do not.

Free citizens do not ask permission. Not to protect themselves and their families, not to marry,* and not to "buy or sell."

If you do not understand that distinction now, and what "choose life," means, you will not be able to recognize the deception that will get the vast majority of 'xtians' to willingly accept a jurisdiction that will require a certain Mark, and fairly soon.


------------------------------
* Except from the fathers involved, of course, as per Instruction.

What? Your claim is that a lawless government that violates its own founding documents will some how be stymied by your refusal to cede jurisdiction?

There is nothing in a marriage license that references jurisdiction. There is nothing in marriage law that would stop an unmarried couple from accessing the court system to dissolve their bonds. This is just nuts. No amount of obfuscation or deflection changes that.

Our government is a “law” unto itself. It does not care about sovereign citizen style weirdness. That stuff doesn’t work, has never worked and will never work and if you doubt me then I dare you to tell a judge in a custody dispute that he doesn’t have jurisdiction. Let’s see if you can get the case dismissed.

 

[ASyers41]

I just wanted to contribute one thought here on the Public School System at least here in the United States. The Public School System literally says once they are dropped off they are property of the government until they are returned to your care it’s in the small details that no one reads when they register their child for school.

 

[Mark C]

What? Your claim is that a lawless government that violates its own founding documents will some how be stymied by your refusal to cede jurisdiction?

You are so full of your own BS you can't see straight.

Whom do you trust? YHVH or man? "Show me your faith by your ACTIONS."

This isn't about what Big Brother can, and will, do to you, and whether your almighty hubris can stop it.

It's whether or not you trust Him enough to walk in obedience. 'Cause if you don't, you haven't got a prayer surviving what's coming anyway. And He says so.

 

[FollowingHim]

That evidence has been provided before, here, and at length.

Furthermore, I have done national radio shows on the topic, and made the case at length, for over twenty years

And I am very familiar with your radio show, being once a regular listener, and have gone there seeking answers to things before. Never found the answers I was seeking, because everywhere you discuss this issue you do exactly what you are doing in this very discussion: talk all around the issue with many, many words but never actually prove your point. I am thoroughly persuaded that there is zero value in listening to hours of you talking in the hope of getting the answers I am asking you for, because I don't believe the answers will be there either.

If you do have an answer, prove me wrong by giving it - not a link to 2 hours of waffly talk that you claim includes the answer but actually never does, give the actual answer itself. Or if you don't intend to answer the question, either because you have no answer or don't want to give it for some reason, just stop talking.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You are so full of your own BS you can't see straight.

Whom do you trust? YHVH or man? "Show me your faith by your ACTIONS."

This isn't about what Big Brother can, and will, do to you, and whether your almighty hubris can stop it.

It's whether or not you trust Him enough to walk in obedience. 'Cause if you don't, you haven't got a prayer surviving what's coming anyway. And He says so.

I’m not Eve sure what you’re claiming but I think knots that marriage licenses are sinful maybe? Do you have a proof text for this at all?

 

[Mark C]

And I am very familiar with your radio show, being once a regular listener...

I don't believe you. And you've lied before. And you make this claim NOW?

You got more of an answer than your sarcasm merited directly above. I cited law. I cited court precedent. I cited related examples. @ASyers41 above pointed out the example of the public cesspool schools, where "Gun-Free Killing Zones" have proven an invitation to mass murder. You can't, or won't, see any of them.

HaSatan (the Adversary, and his minions) is required, I believe, to give warning, just as (Amos) YHVH does nothing but He first declares His intentions through His servants, the prophets.

But he doesn't spell out the details for the blind!

He is, after all, a Deceiver, and "comes but to steal, kill, and destroy."

The modern American legal term is that you "knew, or should have known." And so, says Yahushua, you "are without excuse."

There is NO 'magic bullet,' and if you'd actually listened I wouldn't have to repeat that, either.

Furthermore, if I reference His Instruction ('torah') - you and I both know you or your Revolting Mini-Me would censor it before it could be read! So, are you baiting me (again)?!!!

And I've already made the point, from Romans 6:16. Since you didn't evidently bother to look it up, here it is:

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience to righteousness?

The answer is so clear, and so simple, you both refuse to see it:

"You can NOT serve two masters!"

And if you can't see the "fine print", the 'adherent contracts,' the strings attached, to asking permission from ANOTHER MASTER to do that which our Creator, YHVH, has given you EVERY Right to do -- NOBODY here can help you!

 

[The Revolting Man]

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience to righteousness?

What you’re not showing is how a marriage license is presenting ourselves as slaves to obey unrighteousness. There is no connection between this verse and a marriage license.

 

[Mark C]

What you’re not showing is how a marriage license is presenting ourselves as slaves to obey unrighteousness. There is no connection between this verse and a marriage license.

And if you can't see the "fine print", the 'adherent contracts,' the strings attached, to asking permission from ANOTHER MASTER to do that which our Creator, YHVH, has given you EVERY Right to do -- NOBODY here can help you!

QED.

And why do I suspect you won't grok the problem with begging for a license/permit to "own" a gun, either...

 

[FollowingHim]

@Mark C, are you suggesting it is sinful to ever get a government license for anything? So, sinful to get a driver's license, pilot's license, firearms license, business operating license... Anything that the government in your area has decided to require a license for? And the only option for a believer is to do all such things without a license, even if that means risking jail?

 

[MemeFan]

@Mark C, are you suggesting it is sinful to ever get a government license for anything? So, sinful to get a driver's license, pilot's license, firearms license, business operating license... Anything that the government in your area has decided to require a license for? And the only option for a believer is to do all such things without a license, even if that means risking jail?

No. Government asking for licence is what is illegal.

 

[Mark C]

@Mark C, are you suggesting it is sinful to ever get a government license for anything? So, sinful to get a driver's license, pilot's license, firearms license, business operating license... Anything that the government in your area has decided to require a license for? And the only option for a believer is to do all such things without a license, even if that means risking jail?

Why do you say "sinful"?

How about "not all things are profitable," as Paul noted?

And there is a difference (lawfully) between a "pilot's license," which is technically a "certificate of competency," as opposed to "permission from a Superior Authority to do that which is otherwise...illegal..."
and a permit to exercise a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED [and once understood to be God-given] Right.

And will you "risk jail," when the time inevitably comes (if you believe YHVH, that is) - or take the 'permission' [mark] to be allowed to "buy or sell?"

Just who says you don't have a Right to own property? Buy it, sell it?

There are consequences for decisions.

I choose, BTW, not to live in a jurisdiction where Big Brother prohibits my "keeping and bearing arms."


Those of us who live in what was once, at least, a Constitutional Republic, with Rights "secured" by a government which acknowledged PROHIBITIONS on things it now "licenses," know that there are things worth fighting for. The Founders didn't ask permission...

 

[Mark C]

Government asking for licence is what is illegal.

Technically, "unlawful," @MemeFan. "Legal" is whatever Big Brother decrees...whether it is lawful or not.

 

[Mark C]

@FollowingHim -- are there ANY "Rights" that you are willing to fight for?

 

[MemeFan]

Technically, "unlawful," @MemeFan. "Legal" is whatever Big Brother decrees...whether it is lawful or not.

If Constitution doesn't authorize activity and state does activity anyway, doesn't that makes state's activity illegal?

Or is again special legal dictionary in effect?

 

[Mark C]

If Constitution doesn't authorize activity and state does activity anyway, doesn't that makes state's activity illegal?

Or is again special legal dictionary in effect?

That's a more complex answer than you suppose.

The real 'States' (as opposed to corporate bureaucracies that now 'rule the roost') had all authority reserved/retained to them (see 9th and 10th Articles to the Bill of Rights) that were not specifically delegated to the central government, or prohibited by it TO them. (Primarily Article I, Sections 7-10)

So, they could not "make war," or alliances with foreign states (like Kalifornia attempted), etc. In MOST cases, the States also adopted their own constitutions which included a Bill of Rights, very similar to the 'federal' version. (I am not a believer in the "14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights apply to the States BS, because they DON'T - witness the First, Second, Fourth...etc.)

See Amjur on "unconstitutional so-called 'laws'" -- State activities which violate the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) are 'unlawful,' (18 US Code Sec 141, 142) and are punishable. But - that would require actual courts of "law".

There is a difference between things they are not AUTHORIZED to do (which are few) and things they are PROHIBITED from doing (and often do now anyway.)

 

[The Revolting Man]

QED.

And why do I suspect you won't grok the problem with begging for a license/permit to "own" a gun, either...

This is silly Mark. The two things aren’t related on any level. No one said you had to or even should get a marriage license. The claim is that it is not a moral failing nor does it afford the government any extra authority.

And not getting a marriage license does not stop you from participating in any of the states of marriage. It simplifies some government paperwork and has tax implications. That is all. A gun license violates all of those things.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from here @Mark C. So a pilot's license (and presumably a driver's license) are ok, but a firearms license and a marriage license are not. I'm trying to figure out what logic you are using to reach this conclusion.

The difference you give is that a pilot's license is a certificate of competency - flying is dangerous, you don't want any fool crashing into your house, so it is reasonable for the government to require people to sit a test and prove they are competent, and give a license to those who pass. I presume you think it would still be wrong for the government to enforce those laws, it should be ok for anyone to fly whether or not they have their government paperwork. But it's ok to get the license to avoid prosecution.

Have I understood you so far or am I wrong somewhere? I'll pause there to check before applying it to marriage so I don't unintentionally make a straw man statement.

 

[Mark C]

I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from here @Mark C. So a pilot's license (and presumably a driver's license) are ok, but a firearms license and a marriage license are not. I'm trying to figure out what logic you are using to reach this conclusion.

I can understand that some might suggest that flying, while a skill that must be acquired, could still fall in the category of something that fools should be allowed to do, whether they kill themselves, and perhaps others, or not. The claim is made that being a fool with a gun is thus similar, and "must be regulated" by Big Brother. Perhaps those same people feel justified in deciding who should be allowed to marry, and have children.

But both marriage, and to "keep and bear arms," are "God-given Rights." Marriage is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights (I would argue that it is covered by the 9th and 10th Amendments) -- but "arms" certainly are. And "shall not be infringed." So to require a "license" so that what must then be regarded as slaves (who cannot own property, but are considered so by their master) can exercise said privilege is "unlawful." Period.

I encourage people not to submit themselves to "another master." The One we have is my choice.



PS> "Driver's licenses" -- if you read the law books -- are only required for "commercial activity." (That is the nexus that was used to sidestep the above argument; it is still on the books in almost every US state, although increasingly hidden. No, you will no LONGER find that 'smoking gun' you ask for.) And if you've ever driven in LA, and had some idiot come down the wrong lane on an interstate at you -- I have, TWICE, and I only went there on business trips! -- you know the 'competency' argument is vapid.

 

[FollowingHim]

Ah, you're coming at it from a different angle than I was thinking, glad I clarified. So it's wrong to accept a government license for basic functions of humanity - such as marriage and self defense - but ok to accept a licence for peripheral matters such as operating machinery, commercial activity and so forth?

 

[steve]

I would say that it is wrong to have to get permission from the government to do things that the government has no intrinsic right to regulate. It is a form of begging, accepting that they have the right to control that portion of your life.

It gets more gray when we as a society want privileges regulated due to a concern for safety.
Case in point is the law that requires proficiency in reading and writing English in order to hold a commercial driver license. It is a law that is on the books, but Obama decided that it shouldn’t be enforced. So it hasn’t been. No one has been keeping track of the accidents that have happened that may have been the result of people not being able to read signs. Trump has reaffirmed the law and it is said to be a factor in people leaving the industry.

You could say that personal ballistics should also be regulated for the common good, but we have a very specific Constitutional law that prohibits such restrictions.