Sillik, is your definition of socialism supposed to be superior to all other definitions because it comes from your god position?

Sillik, I shake my lowered head. You make clear at socialism, liberty is not an inherent attribute and right. Socialism is antithetical to liberty. Please give a lawfully (nature's law) detailed description on how liberty can be earned. What training will discipline those that love personal responsibility, truth, prosperity, progression of the noble specie man, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty / freedom at nature's law.

Sillik, spoken like a self perceived god of socialism. By your definition, under socialism there is no freedom. You double down on socialism's tyrannical usurpation — replacing individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty / freedom at nature's law with socialism's priesthood (government) privilege. 

In the U.S. there are 2 Montessori methods — the American Montessori and International Montessori; - I preferred the International method but, both are far superior to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's seminaries (public schools). The above quote is held self evident and absolutely accurate.

Sillik, like a mentally ill child that has had the light shined on them, you once again responded to other than the topic — "freedom". OK, I'll bite on the new topic; "the discovery of our interconnected founding social being connection"? Just another incomprehensible word salad dogma attempt from your religion's fallacious dictionary for mentally ill dupes. As you've stated in the past: "you won't say anything unless you can prove it." Pleas use scientific methodology with examples to prove your statement. By example, I can show socialism (any of various economic, religious and political theories, philosophies or movements outside nature’s law advocating collective or governmental / religious ownership and administration of property {real / chattel / sensorial beings, etc.} along with the means of production and distribution of goods.) to be detrimental to the human experience (authors thereof; Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao).

"Truth:? The earliest Old Testament use of truth differs in definitions from Greek, Latin or today's use. Truth, from the Hebrew feminine noun אֶמֶת ʼemeth, (pronounced eh'·meth); is the palpable source and physical materiality of existence as well as, essentially related fact and evidence. Truth there expresses the absolute of a physical event. Is that a great measure of absolution?

Sillik, spoken like a true socialist. "Freedom is the construct and illusion of the child." Freedom in reality "IS" at the "law of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) Finally, you have said something accurate, socialism is an exercise in pain, poverty, enslavement, and otherwise antithetic to the nobility of man.

At nature's law, inalienable rights and liberty with the freedom to exercise such inherent distinctions are innate in the being. “Risk”? - probably, to secure individual nature’s rights, liberty and freedom in ANY society there will always be a certain effort and risk. Any assembly of righteous persons that inherently abide individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law may be measured by the lack of restricting codes and rules. By objective observance; prior to a decade or so before the war between the States, there were no policemen. There were only elected sheriffs with free parties assisting where necessary. The war’s victors evolved an exponential increase of usurpation, tyranny, socialism, slavery for all with a general degradation of carnal gods / fleshly lawmakers anti-nature’s law life style. The carnal gods continue to increase their plethora of laws made for our personal safety, converting the land into a nursery where policemen serve and protect the governing malefactors will against a once free people (NOT ! ! ! serving or protecting WE, the individual sovereigns). The more corrupt the system / people become, the greater the need for governing laws and policing agents.

There is no cost of liberty. Liberty is an inherent element of the being at nature's law. The price of repression (malefactor's salary, lack of productivity, etc.) is directly related to the degree of repression. There is a cost (lives, education, etc.) to liberty's defense.

Sillik, 🤪 — wrong again. Only a damn fool would ignore every socialized (socialism's) path as such has uniquely resulted in totalitarian induced pain, poverty, slavery, war and otherwise, inappropriate human stances. Your godly syndrome advancement once more further's another socialist's dogma: "a lie told often enough becomes the truth." (Lenin). NOT! ! !

Sillik, you are at least, if nothing else, a consistent mentally ill child. As I've stated before, when a child / very immature other is caught, they change the subject — hoping to not have the light shine so brightly on their oops. You are the poster child for such. Above, I proved at fact and law your god complex / religious banter to be wrong. Simply changing the subject will not excuse you lying in the future (now that you proven the truth).

😁

“In the United States, there is no such a thing as toleration, all men have an equal right to ⋯” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Sillik, I was wondering, touting your religious convictions, how does it feel to be wrong the vast majority of the time? Liberty is; “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.). Clarifying original fact, nature’s law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: liberty is; “The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson) “The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution) “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987). “In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” (Frederic Bastiat) Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – nature’s law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason) “Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.” (Daniel Webster) “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:16) “Where liberty is, there is my country” (Benjamin Franklin). Eternally Devine priesthood is a government of liberty.

So, your word salad definition from your personally fallacious dictionary for mentally ill dupes is wrong again. Within all legal, societal and otherwise actual definitions of liberty, your: religious dogma of: “Firearms are not liberty at all.” Is antithetical to reality.

Sillik, what law are you referencing (a legislator's arbitrary will, a societal custom, or ?)  A reasonable person brings with him/her (not a them), at all times, the knowledge that nonviolent alternatives are NOT always attainable. By example: Socialism's capitally enforced anti-natural religious dogma that: individual inalienable rights do not exist OR, the religion of socialism's dogmas supersede nature's law / science OR, liberty only exist by the gods of socialism's current needs.

Sillik, from your mentally ill god complex, your word salad; "only criminals make use of firearms" is almost a little bit accurate in a very small select focus. Your word salad definitions (from your personally fallacious dictionary for mentally ill dupes) does not reflect “law” or reality. Your “criminal” here is simply, one who commits a crime. First, what is a crime? "A crime is an offence against a public law." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) Continuing; within the context of and defining what a “Public law” is - “public” means; “the whole body politic,” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); AND, “Law” is “In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Law, within the de jure States united is “the law of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). The laws of nature and of nature’s God; is/are, a self evident truth / (Nature’s Law) - i.e., - “LAW” is a tangible element’s applied static measurement within a domain of absolutes (biology, chemistry, physics / science, fiscal / economics, gravity, math, magnetics, life, liberty, rights, etc). Next; a fire arm is a tool that may be used lawfully for defense, an implement for providing food, etc. (the list is long). Further, in a broader sense, philosophies of men (in Sillik’s case: religion of men) such as “legal positivism”, “legal realism”, “maritime law”, etc. are all “ARBITRARY” enforcements within an atmosphere of totalitarian enslavement. “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) - “the nature of things” is founded in / from “nature’s law”. Sillik, I will write this real slow so that even you may grasp it (mmmm probably not). A “criminal” is a desultory designation to a party that has gone contrary to a capricious body politic’s arbitrary will (socialism by example); NOT necessarily breaking a law of nature. A party may brake the “law” by using a firm arm in the commission of an unlawful act (murder, theft, etc.) “BUT”, that does not automatically go to a body politic’s definition of a crime. A jury within the de jure States united has the authority to determine fact and “law” beyond the legislator’s domain.

Sillik, 🤪🤣🤪 hahaha / lololol WHAT ? ? ? Your logically explained principle(s) are irrational babble from one that describes his utopia from of perception of his god position and ANTI-science/law religious dogma. Mr. Einstein described you well.

Sillik, your childish word salad is a misdirection and anti-reality to your chosen topic. What do firearms have to do with day to day affairs? The answer; NOTHING. Speaking rational and/or tolerant settlement to irrational and intolerant malefactor(s) intent on doing harm or worse is an exercise in futility. Your utopia does not / can not / will never exist.

Sillik, 🤪 hahaha / lololol I smile while lowering my shaking head. You continue your mentally ill / childish misdirection of the topic after being caught (socialist) — attempting to change the subject matter through a fallacious ad hominem. Your mentally diluted delusions (observations) illogically besmirch with erroneous scrutinizing the "founding fathers" and, misrepresent reality. What ever your hallucination is concerning "the present conventional contemporary behavior", it is anti-scientific and contrary to nature's law. Your god syndrome only adds to your delusions of reality

Sillik, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth again. Socialism is a carnal gods' religion without refreshing positive thoughts and/or ideas and, is an empty headed / hearted / spiritual cult of violence.

Sillik, being the extremely immature / mentally ill dupe that you are, you have proven once again that as a child is caught, he/she can not / will not stay on topic. No one ask for a conclusion of anything and through scientific methodology, you have never shown anything you have said is reasonable. The subject question was: "please identify "ONE" abracadabra or prayer that I ever introduced into a scientific equation." Instead of changing the subject with a fallacious ad hominem, a mentally stable adult would have proved his/her statement / point.

Sillik, WHAT ? ? ?  🤪🤪🤪  hahahah / lolololol  You are nuts. I feel sorry for you and you REALLY need help. Outside a figment of your diseased mental aberrations, please identify "ONE" abracadabra or prayer that I ever introduced into a scientific equation. You once stated that you never say anything you can't prove. I have asked you on multiple occasions to use scientific methodology instead of religious rhetoric / word salad to prove what you've said. To date, no response. Like a child that tries to change the subject when they get caught, you can never answer a question directly (scientifically or otherwise) but rather, change the subject and give more of your religious training / dogma (by example, your word salad above). You are not as unique a god as you purport to be.

Charlie Kirk was but one non-violent patriot that gave his blood for humanity's betterment. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land with its patrons, with its theological devotees (socialists of all dogmas, other demonic apologists, etc.) and with all those spiritless liars that give lip service to individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law are manure that yet shall bleed (financially, politically, physically, etc.).

We hold this truth to be self evident ! ! !

Editor, thank you ! ! !  That says it all — I can't add to it.