Declaration Of Non-Ownership: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. However, ROC citizenship is useless for Mainland people, and merely symbolic. It’s important symbolism because if Taiwan tries to change the rules, it would likely be considered a declaration of independence and could trigger a war.The important status is “Taiwan Household Registration” and it turns out to be much harder for a Mainland resident to get Taiwan Household Registration than a non-ROC citizen (basically impossible unless you marry someone).ROC citizenship rules are significant for overseas Chinese like myself. If I were not an overseas Chinese, I would have to naturalize as an ROC citizen before getting Taiwan residency, and that would force me to renounce my US citizenship. Since I am technically a citizen of the ROC already, I can get Taiwan registration without naturalization and so I can keep my US citizenship.

There are personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments.You do not need to assert all of them if you do not wish (like ownership of guns) but you may assert the rights as a citizen.The list of specific rights is long but here is a web page that attempts to enumerate all the personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and amendments:Constitutional Topic: Rights and Responsibilities - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.netAnd don’t forget the Declaration of Independence says we have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

One thing she and I 100% agree on. Democracy is not an excuse to trample the rights of minorities.Just because a majority votes to enslave all black persons does not make it right or proper.Just because a majority of men vote to not allow women to vote, does not make it right or proper.Just because a majority votes to criminalize being homosexual, does not make that acceptable.For the exact same reason, voting to disarm innocent people wanting to be able to defend themselves against criminals is 100% totally unacceptable.If the law violates clearly protected civil rights as enumerated in the 2nd & 14th amendment, yes federal courts can overrule that, just as they overruled public school racial segregation.If that means as in Little Rock US Army units on the ground forcing state officials to comply at gunpoint — that is what it means.Why Eisenhower Sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock After Brown v. BoardWhen the governor of Arkansas failed to integrate Central High School, President Eisenhower called in federal troops to protect the Little Rock Nine.When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that separate schools for whites and blacks were unconstitutional and inherently unequal, the slow and often violent dismantling of segregation in educational institutions began across the country.If enforcement of the U.S. Constitution must be done at bayonet point — so be it.Edit interesting discussion from comments asking how I would define rights.Try the declaration of independence, a paragraph from it is a very good start.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.We are all human beings and so necessarily have equal rights. As pointed out by Jefferson, we hold these truths to be self-evident also called axiomatic or obvious.Definition of AXIOMATICDefinition of axiomatic1: taken for granted : SELF-EVIDENTan axiomatic truth2: based on or involving an axiom or system of axioms axiomatic set theorySo starting from the axiomatic position that all humans are created equal and have equal rights (rejecting ideas of nobility and royalty), we can derive a whole lot of rights from that one thing.I will not argue with you that humans are created equal, or that we have unalienable rights. We are, and we do, so the question is — what are those rights.To start with if we are created equal and have equal rights, and have unalienable rights. The fact that we exist and have rights means necessarily we have an unalienable moral right to live as that is part of our existence. Life is part of our existence, so the right to struggle to stay alive is unalienable.That of necessity means we have the right to do things that promote our survival. All sorts of things like hunting, fishing, farming, and the like. Obviously that includes self-defense and having and building means of self-defense, such a weapons.The axiom that we have equal rights, and are created equal of necessity means your proper rights cannot conflict with that of other human beings. This being a rule of non-contradiction.Your legitimate rights cannot conflict with the legitimate rights of others. We are equal in creation, and in rights, ergo if you see apparent contradiction, one party or more is asserting non-existent rights.Example, two young men fighting over the “right” to mate with a young woman. This fighting ignores her right to choose whom she wishes to associate with, which may be neither of them.Obviously if we are equal and have equal rights, a right to self-defense exists, and a consequent right to have arms to facilitate means of self-defense exists.You contradicting that is placing your personal interests over that of your fellow man, and is a fundamental violation of the rights of man.Another Edit: some brit started in on me:Quote you:If the right to own a firearm is so obvious why does nearly every country similar to the US like Canada, the UK, Australia, etc control individual gun ownership?Because fundamentally the USA is ideologically very, very different from the rest of English speaking society.The UK philosophically rejected the European enlightenment philosophy, and clung to monarchism and divine right of kings and such like ~ totalitarian nonsense, and even backslid into pretty awful totalitarian government after half-heartedly embracing the enlightenment and western liberal philosophy.I suspect you have never actually read the US Declaration of Independence for content, and if you did, you think we were not serious — we were:Link to Declaration—http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docume...Quoting a part of it focused on philosophy:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.EMPHASIS — we hold we have the right to alter or abolish our government if we think that would make us happier. We don’t need any better reason.Many people outside the US and a few in it, think this is not serious, and should not be taken literally.WRONG. We were never kidding about that.How could we alter or abolish our government if we were disarmed, and the government resisted?That is why we are never ever going to change on this issue.Further what was the issue that set off the violence in the American Revolutionary War? You don’t Remember?? We do!!Battles of Lexington and Concord - WikipediaSome Brit General decided to confiscate (fancy word for steal) arms and ammunition belonging to the colonists. The colonist militia handed the British Regulars a sound thrashing and chased them back to Boston.The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9]The battles were fought on April 19, 1775 in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge. They marked the outbreak of armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in America.Furthermore — and this is critical — you are anachronistically assuming police existed. Not then — not in England — nor in America.Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th CenturyEngland in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French.Also true for British Colonies at the time.All law enforcement was done by the people. Now here is the thing, the 13 colonies situation was much worse than England in terms of violence due mainly to large numbers of hostile natives, this was a big deal, making a right to bear arms far more important for colonials than English.Then during the war, the Brits made things much worse. This below is ONE well documented incident of a great many.Jane McCrea - Wikipedia The hired scalping and murder of Jane McCrea — the painting is shown on the link.Jane McCrea (sometimes spelled McCrae or MacCrae, 1752 – July 27, 1777) was a young woman who was killed by a Huron-Wendat warrior associated with the British army of Lieutenant General John Burgoyne during the American Revolutionary War. Affianced to a Loyalistserving in Burgoyne's army, her slaying led to expressions of outrage and an increase in Patriotmilitary recruiting, especially in the days following her killing.The propaganda that followed greatly accentuated her beauty, and the fact that she was associated with Loyalists (although her family was primarily active in serving the Patriot cause) undermined British claims of protection for Loyalists. Burgoyne's inability to punish the alleged killers also undermined British assertions that they were more civilized in their conduct of the war; the dissemination of this propaganda contributed to the success of Patriot recruiting drives in New York for several years.McCrea's fiancé was reported to be bitter about the affair, and never married. The story of her life and death entered American folklore, and was used by Kenneth Lewis Roberts in Rabble in Arms.The point is Americans ARE NOT BRITS, and we have a dramatically different political philosophy and outlook.Aside from that — your presumptions that Brits, Canadians, NZ or Aussies have a clue what they hell they are about as to running an empire — or controlling crime — is absurd. You have no business lecturing us — ever.Especially after pulling your asses out of a fire of your own making twice over 30 years. Then acting as if your gun control ideas were sensible, yet when you investigate British crime rates, the evidence strongly indicates it was extremely bad policy.My investigation of British violent crime and the effects of British gun control laws on them in the 20th century.Gun Control Laws and the effect of them on crime in England & Wales in the 20th CenturyIt was not pretty.Violence against the person is a British police term that till 1998 meant actual injury done by physical violence to a person’s body in a crime. Then in 1999 and on they added threats, and I stopped tracking it. In the above graph you only see actual violence with injury.Very ugly — sane people would not say they had a clue what the hell they were doing