You don't have to. Property rights are inalieneable. Call it "natural law" if it helps you grasp it: the fact is that you don't have to agree to anything before I'm empowered to defend myself and my property. If you don't like that, then you'll have to learn the hard way. I'll explain to your heirs that it was self-defense, and they'll accept it, sorrowing.
The right to KBA is not dependent on a separate someone selling his personnel property...
You're confusing the "Bill of Rights" with actual inalienable human rights. The BoR is a list of rules restricting government in order to prevent government from violating those inalienable rights. It isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now. Lawyers refer to those restrictions as "rights", but they mean "legal" rights, not fundamental human rights.
In any society that respects (1) private property and (2) non-initiation of force, citizens must be able to keep and bear arms. Not because of the second amendment; these societies presumably don't have the US constitution in the first place. Nevertheless, government (and anyone else) would be powerless to take your guns away.
Why is that? Because, firstly, you have the right to self defense, so your possession of weapons cannot be interpreted as the threat of illegal aggression. Secondly, nobody can tell you not to make, buy or sell a gun. Ergo, any attempt to disarm you by force is illegal, and you have the right to defend yourself from it.
One of the characteristics of property is ownership and ownership can change.
That is not inherent to property; what makes property property is that you own it, not your ability to sell it.
If you could give up ownership of yourself, someone else would own you. Normal people believe that when one person owns another, one is a slave and the other a slaver.
Rothbard argues cogently that selling oneself is inherently impossible, because obeying the commands of a "master" is itself a consensual act. Others counter that you can indeed voluntarily enter into contractual slavery. I agree with those others, but point out that the contract cannot be enforced per se; rather, it must identify specific penalties for default, whereby the person can essentially "buy himself back".
But note that to be valid, a contract must be voluntary. If you want, you can take a job; if you really want to, you can also sign a contract allowing your boss to tell you where to live, who to marry, and giving him custody of any future children.
The critical point of contract law, however, is that it must be possible to quit, possibly subject to some sort of fine or penalty. This fact is essentially why Rothbard argues that contractual slavery is literally impossible, because he regards slavery as characterized by the fact that you can't quit. To that extent he's right, and "indenture" would be a much more accurate term.
An open area of research concerns what sort of penalties may or may not be assessed for violating a contract of indenture, and precisely how those limits are determined in the context of a libertarian legal code.
Or were you just making a cheap ad hominem when you brought up "slavery"?
In any society that respects (1) private property and (2) non-initiation of force, citizens must be able to keep and bear arms.
Not because of the second amendment; these societies presumably don't have the US constitution in the first place. Nevertheless, government (and anyone else) would be powerless to take your guns away.
Why is that? Because, firstly, you have the right to self defense, so your possession of weapons cannot be interpreted as the threat of illegal aggression. Secondly, nobody can tell you not to make, buy or sell a gun. Ergo, any attempt to disarm you by force is illegal, and you have the right to defend yourself from it.
Yes indeed, our Republic respects both private property and the non-initiation of force, and that citizens must be able to keep and bear arms as per the second amendment.
Therefor, government (and anyone else) should be powerless to take your guns away from you on the way to or from work.
Why is that? Because, firstly, you have the right to self defense, so your possession of weapons cannot be interpreted as the threat of illegal aggression. Secondly, nobody should be able to tell you not to make, buy or sell a gun. Ergo, any attempt to disarm you by force is illegal and unconstitutional, and you have the right to defend yourself from it.
Leaving your gun in a locked vehicle while at work is, -- as you admit, -- an "actual inalienable human right".
In nature, one who wants what another has just takes it if possible. Remember your “Chain of theft”?
“Property rights are inalieneable.”
Shouldn’t you return whatever property you obtained as a benefit of your Chain of theft?
“If you don't like that, then you'll have to learn the hard way. I'll explain to your heirs that it was self-defense, and they'll accept it, sorrowing. “
Who wrote “Force is not involved”? (“Force is not involved” was a cut and paste from whoever posted it.)
And in the unlikely event you prevail, my heirs may sorrow but they won’t accept it. You will have initiated “Blood Feud” (at least in your fantasy and maybe reality too). The best you’ll be able to do is stay hidden somewhere on the pitiful plot you claim, perhaps scurrying out at night to resupply. That is the world of your vision.
“You're confusing the "Bill of Rights”…”
Your comments have no relevance to what I said since the ability I noted could be used 9800 years before the “Bill Of Rights” or tomorrow.
“…you own it…”
And ownership of something can change. You don’t have to sell it or anything; it can even be stolen from you.
“Or were you just making a cheap ad hominem when you brought up "slavery"?”
With all seriousness I absolutely in no way intended an ad hominem. It didn’t even occur to me that you might take it that way. I just wanted to point out the inherent contradiction in the statement “one's self is one's property,” and prompt you to think about that. You obviously have.
But you still threw in some assumptions to which I have to reply that I fail to recognize the validity of you making all the rules, setting terms and conditions, then declaring that I have agreed to an implicit contract you contrived for your own convenience when I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me, and you threaten me with violence for not meeting an obligation to which I did not commit to when all the while you refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to your unilateral ravings. You can’t have it both ways.