Gold and Silver Registration in Illinois

Comments

Glock27's picture

Yes. The Gov. is coming after your gold and silver because it is illegal to possess.

Suverans2's picture

Even if that is true, it is perfectly lawful for a free man, one who is not a member of any of their political associations, to possess gold and silver.

Glock27's picture

Ah! Suverans2. You've not heard that Ilinoise is gathering names of people who own gold and silver. They just say they want to know woh's got it? What for? It;s none of their business whos got what'

Suverans2's picture

I reiterate: "Even if that is true, it is perfectly lawful for a free man, one who is not a member of...their political association, to possess gold and silver." They have no jurisdiction over free men and women.

Oh, and it's very important to remember, ILLINOIS is an artificial entity, it doesn't gather anything. Just sayin'.

Glock27's picture

Greetings Suverans 2,
I read a scientific report that concluded that a person must see something at least four times before it begins to stick. As many times as you have repeated this to me I think I am beginning to understand it a little. Not there a hundred percent, but I think I know what you are saying. Thanks. You have been quiet helpful to me.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Glock27,

Not certain which of those two things, (the jurisdictional issue, or the artificial entity issue), is starting to "stick", but you are welcome. Let's presume, for the moment, that you were referring to the jurisdictional issue.

Those men and women who have been given authority over the voluntary citizens/subjects belonging to the artificial 'legal entity' called STATE OF ILLINOIS have no lawful authority to make laws, or demands, on free men and women, i.e. men and women who are not consenting members of that, or any of the other artificial entities, which are members of their confederacy. (Think of the STATES as slave owners who have agreements with each other as to how they will treat the others' slaves, and it may help.)

Now, remember, Amendment XIII [1865] Section 1 of the Constitution which created your Supreme Sovereign, [the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT], says this; "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist with the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." It is, as a result of that, also in the Constitution which created your Semi-Sovereign [the STATE OF ILLINOIS][1]; Article 6: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The kind of "slavery" that IS 'legal', as a consequence, is called voluntary servitude, which, of course, is also lawful.

Most of its citizens/subjects have ended up in voluntary servitude via what is legally termed, "voluntary ignorance"; "This exists where a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the necessary knowledge, but has neglected to do so"[2].
__________________________________________________

[1] "The challenge for those pro-slavery members of the convention was to write a constitution seemingly against slavery so it would be accepted by Congress while also being worded in such a way that it left the door open for the future addition of the institution." ~ Elijah Lovejoy (1802-1837)

Much to their relief, they discovered that the U.S. Constitution had already achieved that very goal, so they copied its anti-slavery amendment, nearly verbatim.

[2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 1575

Samarami's picture

Well, Suverans2, thankfully you introduced me some months ago to Frank van Dun and the study of "Lawful vs Legal" -- which arbitrates between your use of the term "rights" and my refraining from the use thereof (neither of us are "wrong" -- nor was the late producer of the ISIL "Self-Ownership" video -- his name escapes me -- who used "rights" often throughout).

I am a sovereign state. I didn't become sovereign through any expectation of the white man upholding "legalities" (and certainly any semblance of "the lawful"). In fact I just posted a "comment" on "Dull Hawk"'s site in connection with this.

Politicians may try to confiscate bullion and/or coins containing precious metal from "their citizens" (neither thee nor me included in the "citizen" racketry). The key is to cease being a "citizen" or "an American". If you're still holding onto that sentimentality, you have painted a large target upon your back for the white man's goons to use for target practice. Make no mistake: they are dangerously armed and they will shoot.

This is all the more reason you can be free. Today. Right now. The white man is stupid, his radar flawed, easily flown under with a little adept pilotry.

I'd like to eliminate the white man. But that would be a waste of my time, and I'm nearing the "end rows" -- I've gotta use my time effectively. I'll stand with Mr. Davies and Suv and the rest of the gang in helping boost the late comers over the fence, but I won't flail away at windmills.

And I will never, never expect psychopaths to repent.

Sam

.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Sam,

You corroborate, in my opinion, what I wrote, with this; Politicians may try to confiscate bullion and/or coins containing precious metal from "their citizens" (neither thee nor me included in the "citizen" racketry). The key is to cease being a "citizen" or "an American". Thank you.

Though ceasing to be "an American" would depend, entirely, upon one's definition of American. I'm "still holding onto that sentimentality", if that is the way you wish to describe it; I am "an American", but only as defined by Noah Webster, circa 1828, "A native of America".

AMER'ICAN, n. A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America. [Emphasis added]

Other, newer, definitions may not apply, though this one, "An American is someone who lives in North or South America (noun)", is just fine with me. I do not live in the UNITED STATES, or any of its subsidiaries, (all legal fictions), though I do live on the continent commonly known as North America.

“'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’" Which is as it must be, (contrary to some men's irrational opinions), if we are to communicate effectively.

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another..." ~ Voltaire

Suverans2's picture

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another..." ~ Voltaire

Is this simple truth difficult to prove? Not at all!

Using the current conversation about being “an American” as our testing ground; if Sam insists on defining “an American” as, “...someone who is a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States”, then he is right, as an individual secessionist I have ceased to be “an American”.

On the other hand, if I insists on defining “an American” as, “A native of America” or, “..someone who lives in [on the continents of] North or South America” then I have not ceased being “an American”.

But, to be more amicable, (without giving up my position on the issue), I can say, “as you define it, Sam, you are correct, I have given up being “an American”. Or, as you define it, Sam, you are a "sovereign state".

Samarami's picture

Yeah, Suv, but who the hell ever accused me of "..communicating effectively.."???

Just kidding.

I personally refrain for the most part from use of the term "American" to define myself; but I try to avoid the insinuation that you should also refrain. Personal choice, as I perceive it, is the hallmark of liberty. You are correct in calling my hand when I imply that one calling himself or herself "American" is clinging to "sentimental emotionalism".

As a human being inhabiting a portion of that land mass once given the label "America", I look at "America" as a political term, just like I see borders or boundaries as fictitious lines in the sand, fought over in history by serfs and slaves of those psychopathic politicians. As a sovereign state I exist apart from "America", but engage in friendly (and not-so-friendly) interactions with those calling themselves "Americans".

So I'll try to refrain from behaving like a "libertarian Philistine".

Sam

Suverans2's picture

Wasn't me, my good friend, I never, ever accused you of "...communicating effectively..."; don't blame me! lol

We have no, disagreement, Sam, "if [you] insist on defining “an American” as, “...someone who is a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States”, as opposed to, “A native of America”, or “..someone who lives in [on the continents of] North or South America”, then [you are] right, as an individual secessionist I have ceased to be “an American”." If you insist on defining America as the United States, as opposed to a continent, then I don't live in America either.

See, we are in complete agreement on these issues, it's only the definitions we disagree on. ;)

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire

Stay warm, old friend.

Glock27's picture

Greetings Sam,
I am coming closer and closer to understanding you and Suverans2. Freedom and Liberty give me problems, especially because I am uncertain that many here have no idea what it is, I don't yet for I am researching it and have come across a term connected with it called necessity or indespensible to the meaning fo the term freedom or liberty. Now Soverigen seems more specific and limited and useable. I am not sure I want to call myself a soverigne yet because I have a difficult time in leading myself. But being a soverigen of these lands I inhabit makes more sense. I can then define liberthy and freedom for myself.

Suverans2's picture

Just to be clear, Sam, neither did I become a non-citizen through any expectation of the white man upholding "legalities" (and certainly any semblance of "the lawful") either; I simply withdrew from membership in the man-made political associations, and I waive all member-only benefits and privileges[1]. However, as I have said before, while those who wish to rule the world are still trying to maintain the façade of being lawful, I will use their own so-called law, and the law by which I govern myself: the natural law, to non-violently defend my position whenever possible.
_________________________________________________________

[1] Omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se indulta sunt, renunciare. [It is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons[sic] shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit. Cod. 1, 3, 51 ; Id. 2, 3, 29 ; Broom, Max 699. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990) page 1086

Glock27's picture

Everybody here has a job. Tha't why it is so silent here. Well ifthat's true, then it is great news, the country is getting back on track.

Glock27's picture

Why is everyone so silent. Several days and so few posts?

Suverans2's picture

Didn't you hear, the world ended 21 Dec 2012.

Glock27's picture

No. But Strike did rather emphatically.