"He who learns must suffer..."Posted by TargeT (here)
I would not encourage "registered" or "licensed" both those terms IMPLY permission.Posted by sigma6 (here)
.. an honest man with a gun in the crowd made a difference, many deaths could be curtailed or prevented if other parties were able to defend themselves, disarming registered licensed citizens doesn't do anything to disarm criminals, therefore it is the opposite of a solution... within this context, at this time
now I could possibly see a caveat that when carrying a weapon "concealed" training of some sort is "required" but open carry should always be legal by anyone, and anywhere that the public is allowed to go. I'm a bit torn between not restricting at all and agreeing that some training is highly benificial.
~Aeschylus (I couldn't agree more...)
Registration Of The NAME, A Record Can Be Used As A Title In Trust
The following is probably more then you need but it is helping me work out some other ideas currently, so your getting a 'bonus' (lol) ...
I used to think that too, because it was understood that there was some kind of transfer of title in the process of registration, which made it seem like the point where the registrar was taking ownership of the property and so forth, it turns out this is not entirely accurate. I am developing a new model of understanding on this... as I understand it better, I am trying to figure out how to explain it more articulately to others as well, looking at all the context of my own understanding that may be necessary in order to explain it better. It's not necessarily complex as it is subtle, and context is critical to this (for now)
But simply put, I am now trying to see positive things in what the government is doing, believe it or not (and no it is not easy for me!) But I am learning to see that it is not the system per se, but the individuals who are running it that are manipulating the system to their advantage and abusing it, by all manner of ways and means. In particular by hiding how exactly it works, by writing numerous unnecessary statutes to bind and confuse us, and not providing better access to education on what our rights are or how to express them, and how they actually operate, etc, and thereby tricking us into a jurisdiction by our consent (according to their interpretation) which we wouldn't otherwise 'agree' to if we were truly aware of their interpretation! So early on I realized this always creates two interpretations (the first confusion) ie. ours and theirs, and as unfair as it is, they know it better then we do, or at least the statutory side that they 'tricked' us into (from our point of view) and they do take full advantage of the fact.
Anyhow long story short, there is an understanding in this new model (or really just a different understanding) that the purpose of registration is to protect our property right to things which have great value by maintaining a permanent record as evidence of that right. For example a long time ago Winston Shrout exhorted people to go down to a county recorder's office (I think that is that what they call it in the US?) to file a notice, the purpose being that it would now be a document that could be used in a court of law as evidence. Thus registered documents, are by definition legally protecting us as they can be used as evidence of our right to something (ie. car, house, etc.) Ok, that's that for now, until I develop a more detailed vocabulary on this part.
Now, if there is such a thing, as everything being held in trust by the state, for example (which I believe it is...) see this definition from the Criminal Code (CC)
Municipality (2010):
"municipality" includes the corporation of a city, town, village,
county, township, parish or other territorial or local division of
a province, the inhabitants of which are incorporated or are
entitled to hold property collectively for public purpose:
Anyhow, it's not because of the registrar at the driver's license bureau, (or gun license bureau?) it's more to do with the NAME trust entity. So if this were true as above seems to be making reference to, ie. that all "property is held collectively for public purpose"... Then what prevents someone from taking your car and driving off with it? if everything is held collectively, etc? (besides your keys) - it's the fact that you have a right to it, and they don't... that 'right' is really what the "property" is... the thing (the car) is a separate issue (as it is 'held collectively'). It's the fact that the car is registered in the NAME... that you in turn have a controlling interest in... which btw is a perfect example of how one can have control of something without "owning" it... (but that's another story!)
Now the issue of a 'license' is another story... and I am still working through more understanding, but so far it does feel like permission I agree, ie. the 'permission' to do something that is otherwise illegal, and yes in a statutory system, that is asking for permission. I think they are trying to mix the two, so it is a kind of deception at this stage of understanding for me too... However we all have to keep in mind that all these documents are actually assigned to a kind of corporation that you operate. So it is the corporation that is registering, and getting the license. You just have access by virtue of your controlling interest in that corporation. And there is in all likelihood a functional reason for the license as well in a public system. Stepping back for a second, and looked at this way, you may be able to see how it might be an advantage. For example, a lot of sophisticated (rich) business people protect themselves by operating and managing accounts and property under a corporation they control but with all the liability on that corporation. Thus they spend money, drive vehicles and use credit cards that are in the NAME of that corporation. If something happens, the corporation takes on all liability. Which is exactly why they set it up like that in the first place! (sounds pretty elitist eh!?)
Now you are probably wondering what the he** all this has to do with you and and your post. And that is because you do in fact have a corporation! I am referring to your NAME, it can operate (does in fact operate) much like a corporation (among many other things) if you understand it and know how to use it properly. And what if, in fact, all you are doing is registering property in a corporation? In the case of a gun, if you should accidentally injure or even kill someone, well I'd say that having it registered to a corporation that takes all liability is a pretty good thing for you! Now how all this operates is something I can't exactly get into more then I have explained thus far, cause I am not sure how many paragraphs it would take me to effectively extrapolate this. And I am still working on my delivery. But you can get the gist of what I am saying and believe that the potential of what I am saying is there. I am sure you should be able to see why this makes sense both for your ultimate benefit and also even more importantly for the public's benefit.
What's cool, is that sure enough, it cross references well with what Winston used to say, as he mentioned that all insurance is re-insurance, because the NAME's liability is always covered (in this interpretation) which is amazing because this is the first time, I finally understand a possible mechanism of WHY!
Ok, a guy named Dean Clifford also talks on this. Although I don't agree with his interpretation on ownership of property, I do think he is spot on in understanding that we must take control of the NAME that is held by the Crown. And this 'is the kicker' ie. the focus is on understanding your relationship to that NAME as the most important consideration. It is a document/title/trust record that was created when your parents 'gave' you a name, but you never got the original signature title (or deed) did you? (btw, photocopies, reproductions, extracts of titles/deeds do not operate as the original ink signature document itself, right? (re: the one you got)) And that is because (in my case) the Crown, stepped in and proceeded to create, record of an event (which became a title in trust) and registered it with the General Registrar (to protect the valuable rights inherent in it) and is now holding it for safekeeping. So this is where your focus should be (as opposed to the gun registration)
Understand how this works and you don't have to worry about registering anything as a 'bad' thing anymore. Because if you set it up so that all liability is on the 'corporation' in exchange for your ability to live according to certain maxims (as opposed to 60 million statutes) you would be 'operating in trust' exercising your rights, and therefore no longer under statutory law by definition ('they' would have to leave you alone!) this would be 'heaven'! (anyhoo... there is plenty more but I have to cut it here for now...)
Regards the issue of training I am not sure what you are getting at... a gun is like a super dangerous tool, I have seen what a bullet hole through someone's foot looks like. I'd say training is without exception, in everybody's best interest. That's how you would have to think too, if you were ever to 'operate in trust', you would have to start becoming responsible for everything in your life, as well as considering obligation and potential harm to others. (like the man in the mall, as someone accurately pointed out, how he decided not to shoot, because of the other person behind his potential target...) This could be an example of what it would be like to operate in trust. So I couldn't imagine how training wouldn't be necessary somewhere along the line.
Links for my own research/reference:
previous:
Missing 35 Plus Trillion Dollars in Bonds
Own Nothing, Control Everything, What Does This Mean?
following:
2 firefighters shot dead at fire near Rochester
When You Know Who You Are - You WILL Invoke the Trust