LI

[Dale Eastman]

➽ If you don't want the Second Amendment changed you better work against the Convention of States. They are not good guys.

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the constitution applies to me?

➽ Dale Eastman why would you not want the Constitution to apply to the citizenry???

The Constitution is a contract in which the government is bound, not the private citizen.

are you are supporter of the COS?

I asked my question first. Your failure to answer my question notwithstanding, I'll answer yours:

➽ are you are supporter of the COS?

Not in any way...

➽ why would you not want the Constitution to apply to the citizenry???

The question you did NOT answer: Do you have any verifiable evidence that the constitution applies to me?

The question as edited because of your reply: Do you have any verifiable evidence that the constitution applies to any person not in government?

This statement of yours:
➽ The Constitution is a contract in which the government is bound, not the private citizen.
Displays some muddled thinking.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman we did not sign the Constitution and did not create the federal government. The States did this, and the States are still in existence, thus still bound by this compact.

Now, if you care to challenge your being bound to your State's laws, go for it. You were born into a society that accepts that you are to live in the Rule of Law.

If that offends you, the good news for you and me is that one of those State laws that bind you is not one that requires that you remain here. You are free to relocate to a place where you are not subject to the Rule of Law if you like.

Member of voluntaryists / non-aggressionists since September 8, 2014

I found your post slightly... anomalous. So I did something I almost never do, I had a look at additional info about you. You've been a member of this group for about 7 years... Have you not been reading here in all that time?

You are confused as to what a contract is. You changed that word to a "compact". So unless you request, I'll ignore your use of the word "contract".

➽ You were born into a society that accepts that you are to live in the Rule of Law.

Before we can communicate, we need to understand, accept, and agree to what the words being used mean.

What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "society"?
What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "law"?
When you use the word "accepts" did you mean like a slave accepts being born into slavery?

➽ If that offends you,

What offends me is that you swallowed the State's (as in the government's) lies. Not that you swallowed it, the fact that they lied to you in the first place.

➽ If that offends you, the good news for you and me is that one of those State laws that bind you is not one that requires that you remain here.

That statement implies to me that you have no clue about the Roman and the American imperialistic hegemonies.

➽ You are free to relocate to a place where you are not subject to the Rule of Law if you like.

On that claim, you are flat out wrong.

Incorporated by reference:
https://www.goldinglawyers.com/how-to-expatriate/
https://www.goldinglawyers.com/form-8854-irs/

➽ Now, if you care to challenge your being bound to your State's laws, go for it.

What, specifically, do you mean by "law"?

My bottom line opinion after reading what you wrote, you are a government worshiping statist.

[Dale Eastman]

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/daily-commentary/

➽ You were born into a society that accepts that you are to live in the Rule of Law.

Before we can communicate, we need to understand, accept, and agree to what the words being used mean.

What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "society"?
What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "law"?
When you use the word "accepts" did you mean like a slave accepts being born into slavery?

➽ Now, if you care to challenge your being bound to your State's laws, go for it.

What, specifically, do you mean by "law"?

If I understand the admin/owner of this group from his words... Your dishonesty in discussion is your first step towards getting your ass bounced out of this group.

Please answer my questions so that you and I may have a discussion about what liberty actually is.

[Dale Eastman]

Anti liberty people have spent MILLIONS new constitutions. My post was to draw attention to the issue. I thought folks here would be interested. People who has spent that kind of time and money are going to be involved every step of the way should the neocon COS'ers get it to fruition. Saying 'they can't take away our 2A rights because the constitution doesn't grant us anything' is great to know others understand but it's not going to change the powers that be from coming to take the guns. If this means I am going to be bounced from this group, whatever.

Thank you for that reply.

That reply does NOT really address the issues I placed before you.

Also: Unless you tag me, I get no notification that you replied. The only reason I know you replied is because I checked.

To tag me, use the @ sign, followed without spaces, dale.eastman.75

I withdraw my bounce comment. IMO, you've removed most of the tinge of statism I saw in your words. You put on the table, a point that requires scrutiny. Right after you answer the questions I asked you.

You wrote:
➽ You were born into a society that accepts that you are to live in the Rule of Law.

I asked:
What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "society"?
What, specifically, did you mean when you used the word "law"?
When you use the word "accepts" did you mean like a slave accepts being born into slavery?

You wrote:
➽ Now, if you care to challenge your being bound to your State's laws, go for it.

I asked:
What, specifically, do you mean by "law"?

I also requested:
Please answer my questions so that you and I may have a discussion about what liberty actually is.

What you have put on the table for examination is the opposite of liberty.

I am really intrigued by what you wrote. We can not yet discuss it because if we are using the same words to convey different concepts, we have an error of ambiguity. Communication then fails.

Since the topic is "a" constitution, and its second amendment, we need to come to agreement as to what, specifically, we are discussing.

Have you read Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON - the constitution of no authority?