It's official - "Sovereign Citizens" are terrorists that hide behind the Second Amendment

[jpak]

Just saw the 60 Minutes segment on them - more dangerous than the KKK.

yup

[MineralMan]

1. Just hope one doesn't move next door to you.

Assholes, each and all.

[Kurska]

2. Well as long as it is "official" n/t

[ejpoeta]

3. well, they think their right to bear arms is for the purpose of shooting

police and any other officials that they don't like. i mean what is with filing liens on people!! wtf! so anyone can file a lien on anyone else for no reason??? does that mean i can file a lien against one of these jerks?? wtf!

[Hangingon]

11. False leins are atactic of many fringe groups.

AS 60 Minutes said, they are not hard to file.

[sasha031]

4. carry the same philosophy as a lot of tea baggers

[Kolesar]

5. Isn't there a guy here who fetishized Mao and Stalin

...and presumes that he is the bulwark against tyranny?

[Dawson Leery]

6. Many on the right have defended them.

While condemning those who have gone after law enforcement for their overzealous uses of force against minorities.

[virgogal]

7. Oh well,they mainly kill law enforcement officers. (sarcasm).

[X_Digger]

8. Wait, you watch '60 minutes'?!? Lol.. now I know where you get your material..

Andy Rooney!

Bwahaha!

[jpak]

9. Sovereign Citizens are still douchebaggers

yup

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Did you watch the show tonight?

That group is out and out crazy.

[Upton]

10. That's odd..

when CBS came out with their story on the ATF and the Project Gunwalker scandal, you dismissed it and proclaimed it was all part of an NRA/GOP plot. However, now that you see a 60 Minutes segment that meets with your approval...CBS is okay.

Btw..what does any of this have to do with your stated agenda of curtailing my 2nd Amendment rights?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. +1

[sharesunited]

16. The imaginary "right" to which you refer cannot be justified and is being abused.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

22. Pfft. Its binding law of the land.

Change it or get over it.

[sharesunited]

24. If by "change it" you mean correctly interpret it, agreed. And this will eventually happen.

[beevul]

25. No shares. Change it.

It is interpreted quite properly, and correctly.


What you describe as "correctly interpret" turns on its ear, the idea that its a restriction on government exercise of power.


The fact is, thats what it is, thats what it was intended to be, and thats what it currently is interpreted as.


Interpreting it any other way, opens up the door to all sorts of dangerous interpretations of other restrictions on governmental exercise of power which protect rights as well.

Thanks, but I'd just as soon see that door stays closed, and I and millions of others will fight any attempts you and yours make to the contrary.


And we'll win.

[sharesunited]

33. Those folks who thought separate drinking fountains were a sacred right felt the same way.

In the end, they were unable to defend their irrationality.

[beevul]

37. Much like you, in the end...

Much like you, in the end, will be unable to defend yours.


And thats WHY we'll win.

[sharesunited]

40. Which is less rational? Promoting lethal force in the hands of the public? Or discouraging it?

[beevul]

51. Allowing it.

Pretending, on the other hand, that words, and the sentences they make up don't CLEARLY mean what they say, in order to discourage it, is irrational.

And patently dishonest.

[Straw Man]

27. If it's "imaginary"...

The imaginary "right" to which you refer cannot be justified and is being abused.

...how can it be abused?

[sharesunited]

29. Imaginary insofar as it was included for a reason which no longer exists.

Abused insofar as it wrongfully gives convenient power to extinguish the rights of others.

All very much a tortured charade.

[beevul]

30. Wrong again shares.

Wrong again shares.

The reason it was included still exists:

"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" - It being government.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Read it, understand it...

And weep if you need to.

[sharesunited]

32. The claim of need to go to war with the federal government is ridiculous.

Such an option was included at the founding to appease the suspicious and gain ratification.

The Civil War tested whether that need would ever be deemed legitimate, and that war thus rendered that "right" obsolete.

You are never going to take up arms against the government, and we are not fighting the Civil War again.

The straw man has been reduced to ash.

Guns and ammo are only being used by the People against each other, or against the police, which no court will ever endorse as a "right."

[beevul]

Not nearly as ridiculous as you claiming I actually made that claim.

Not nearly as ridiculous as you claiming I actually made that claim.

I didn't.



"Guns and ammo are only being used by the People against each other, or against the police, which no court will ever endorse as a "right."

Of course you know thats not true, but hey, why let facts or truth get in the way of a good hate, right?

Maybe you could try reading and addressing what I actually wrote, shares, rather than inserting your straw argument into my words.

[beevul]

34. .Duplicate. N/T

[Straw Man]

35. So the Civil War was over the Second Amendment? Interesting...

I believe that the straw man was of your own making, and its destruction is moot.

[sharesunited]

36. The Civil War was about opting out through armed resistance as a rejection of reform.

The states attempting to secede asserted it was an option reserved to them at the founding.

*Precisely* as contemplated by the 2A. To prevent abuse of power.

Resolved against secession and against the means of achieving it.

The 2A was settled by history, even if the conservative majority on the Supreme Court hasn't quite caught up with history yet.

[beevul]

38. You just dont get it shares.

"*Precisely* as contemplated by the 2A. To prevent abuse of power."

2A is part of a SET of restrictions aimed at preventing abuse of power.

Its the RESTRICTION, thats aimed at preventing that abuse.

The only one that hasn't caught up with history, is you, friend.

[sharesunited]

39. The abuse which is being realized is typified by Cho at VA Tech, Wong at Binghamton NY,

Hasan at Fort Hood, Loughner at Tucson,

etc.

etc.

etc.

[beevul]

52. Read much?

The abuse in question, is governments abuse of power.

The examples you posted are just failures of gun free zones - places where your preferred rules are in effect - and failed.

[sharesunited]

59. Spoken like someone who puts gun ownership above the rights of individuals.

You do realize that the people mowed down by these gentlemen who thought they should have the power, had rights which were terminated with extreme prejudice?

Is it possible to school you at all? I will continue to try.

[beevul]

60. What you just said is exactly what I'd say...

What you just said is exactly what I'd say, if I wanted to give the impression to people reading, that I was a dolt of infinite magnitude.

"Spoken like someone who puts gun ownership above the rights of individuals."

Gun ownership IS a right of individuals.

Its a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right, which applies to individuals.

Now, you can complain til your blue in the face - I trust all the practice has given you endurance so you wont pass out - that its a misinterpretation, that its right wing, blah blah fn blah...

But you know what? Its the LAW buddy. And its not going anywhere any time soon - Except further in OUR direction.

Deal with it, or don't. Either way, its going where we take it, and you aren't going to stop it.

"You do realize that the people mowed down by these gentlemen who thought they should have the power, had rights which were terminated with extreme prejudice?"

I sure do, and I realize also, that you'd have that potential inflicted on everyone, by taking those rules which enabled the defenselessness of those people you just mentioned, and forcing them on everyone everywhere if you had your way.



What really IS telling about you and your attitude and intent, is that if you had your way youd make laws that would disarm everyone that obeyed them.

And leave everyone else at the mercy of those that DIDN'T obey them.


And just about everyone can see it clear as day, EXCEPT you.


In a nutshell:

Thanks for trying to lay the blame for failures of your preferred policy at the feet of the law abiding gun owners and those that support gun ownership - while completely ignoring that it was the policy - your preferred policy, a gun free zone which you'd have from sea to shining sea if you had your way - that failed.

Thanks but no thanks - were not having any.


"Is it possible to school you at all? I will continue to try."

Your attempts to teach me to embrace ignorance are destined to fail.


You'll have far better luck with those foreign armies.

Hows that working out for you by the way?

[Straw Man]

43. So the Civil War obviated the need for the Second Amendment?

If so, why was it not repealed in 1865? Why did no one even call for its repeal then? Does one misguided and failed rebellion mean wholesale forfeiture of rights? Hint: the Second Amendment does not read "Government will cede authority to any armed rebellion that may arise."

I might also ask what you would think if the shoe had been on the other foot: if the anti-slavery forces had been the ones to secede.

[sharesunited]

46. Grant made Lee's men stack their rifles yet let them leave with their revolvers.

Yes, that's pretty crazy, but it's a fact.

And it was conditioned on the pledge that they no longer engage in hostilities against the United States.

Was it a pledge binding upon their heirs? Yes, and for all time.

If you think the righteousness of the rebellion makes a difference, it doesn't.

The government has the advanced weaponry and we are bound to the covenant forged by the Civil War to renounce violence.

Your so-called "right" to keep and bear arms is merely anachronistic thumb sucking.

[Straw Man]

56. Makes sense.

Grant made Lee's men stack their rifles yet let them leave with their revolvers

Yes, that's pretty crazy, but it's a fact.

Not crazy at all, unless your "covenant" also included renouncing the right to self=defense.

If you think the righteousness of the rebellion makes a difference, it doesn't.

Does that mean if somebody else thinks it makes a difference, then it does? (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

The government has the advanced weaponry and we are bound to the covenant forged by the Civil War to renounce violence.

Are you talking tactics or ethics here? Furthermore, who are "we" and why has the United States not abided by this "covenant"? There has been plenty of violence since the Civil War, both state-sponsored and freelance.

No, I think you can add "Civil War obviated the Second Amendment" to the scrapheap of failed memes along with "gun ownership = child porn" and "the Constitutional right to commit murder."

[DWC]

45. We did it to England

The only difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is the Colonists beat the government and the South did not.

We all pray that it never happens again but to think it cannot is beyond naive.

Semper Fi,

[gejohnston]

12. so what does that have to do with us?

Or are you saying this is Free Republic Left? If so, I have my libel lawyer on speed dial.

[jpak]

48. Free Staters, Teabaggers and Sovereign Citizens are assholes

yup

[lawodevolution]

14. While we are labeling people terrorists at random I'd like to add that anti gun people are terrorist

also, as long as we don't need due process to label people terrorists. One such anti gun terrorist was promoting shooting or attacking conceal carry permit holders recently and another one was planning on distributing bullets that would make guns blow up who was talking about it on the Brady campaign facebook page

[ileus]

17. So they're claiming the 2nd is covering their reason for being?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

21. Just watched it online..

From what I saw, it seems like you should also be complaining about the people's right to redress grievances (bogus liens) and the people's right to free speech (debt 'seminars', websites, forums, etc).

So, what policy implications does the piece have for you? Hm?

Is this an endorsement of removing someone's right to file a lawsuit, post to youtube and fora, and own a gun based on belonging to this organization alone? Without being convicted of a crime? (Which wouldn't have applied to Kane anyway, since he was ineligible to purchase or possess weapons under the terms of the 1968 GCA.)

[jpak]

41. If you really watched it, they claim their Holy 2A rights to kill LEO and elected officials

they don't agree with.

they suck

yup

[X_Digger]

42. So no answer, then?

What policy implications do you draw from this?

[RamboLiberal]

23. They also hide behind other amendments & the constitution

What other amendments & parts of the constitution do you want to do away with?

After all one of these whackos proposed shooting politicians including the president as well as police.

[Straw Man]

26. This whole post is one huge associational fallacy.

Next!

[jpak]

49. Nope - the Sovereign Morans stated they will use their Holy 2A Guns against anyone they fear

police, judges & elected officials

terrorists

yup

[X_Digger]

50. And Hitler was a vegetarian..

Is that the extent of your contribution? Association fallacies?

What policy implications does the OP have for you, hm?

[Hoyt]

28. Timmie McVeigh and followers of "The Turner Diaries" ride again.

[Straw Man]

44. Remind me what this has to do with my right to keep and bear arms...

...because I forget.

[WatsonT]

47. I remember the horror of the OKC shootings

how it took McVeigh weeks to shoot to death those 100+ people and wound hundreds more, as the rest of us just watched and did nothing.

Wait, did he shoot them? That doesn't sound right. It was something else. Hm . . ..

[Katya Mullethov]

31. The science is in , the debate is over , a consensus has been reached

Déjà fuckin' vu

[Paladin]

53. The Company You Keep, DU Gun Enthusiasts.

Sovereign Citizens, Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Fat Tony Scalia---they're all yours, and you're welcome to them. The one issue that the overwhelming majority of you care about exclusively is headed up by a bunch of right wing knuckle-draggers. Gun Enthusiasts who are trying to pass for liberal here at DU aren't fooling anybody but yourselves---your agenda is on daily display....

[gejohnston]

55. Let's see, I'm awful with names but................

We also have Mrs. FDR, JFK (OK so they are dead), the progressive Dem gov of Montana, just off the top of my head.
You have Ronnie Ray gun, Rudy "America's mayor" Giuliani, the Scott Walker clone in New Jersey, Barbara Graham (aka Lipscomb)Million Mom March founder now in prison for attempted murder, Mario Biaggi (another convicted felon), Dan Rostenkowski, Amy Fisher (convicted of attempted murder). Then there are MAIG who are felons including a pedophile. http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

[Euromutt]

58. Don't forget George Orwell and "Big" Tim Sullivan

Orwell declared that a "rifle on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy," arguing that "totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom." ("Don't let Colonel Blimp ruin the Home Guard," Evening Standard, 08-Jan-1941)

Sullivan is, of course, the person for whom New York state's "Sullivan Law" is named, having been the primary legislative sponsor. He was also a Tammany Hall crook who controlled most of the organized criminal activity between 14th Street and the Battery in Manhattan and used gangs as his foot soldiers.

[Straw Man]

57. The company WHO keeps?

Do you know what an associational fallacy is?

Authoritarians who try to pass for liberal here at DU aren't fooling anybody but themselves.

[-..__...]

54. They "hide behind the Second Amendment"...

yet, the story (from the perspective of those involved), claims that... "The weapon of choice is paper", and...

"And I think he ought to be brought up on charges. I know that we have a First Amendment, right, freedom of speech. But how far can you take that First Amendment before it becomes inflammatory and to the point of being treasonous"?

And that last quote (mind you), is from the police chief whose son was killed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/15/60minutes/main20062666.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Perhaps your frustration, ignorance and anger would be more appropriate in the Civil Liberties forum?

See... I'll even help you find it