Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry it's sovereign citizen nonsense, so no one should read it. They twist their views on everything.
Majority of them are nothing but inept paper terrorists. Though, some of them are domestic terrorists.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything the OP said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, try to keep people from reading it in the first place, and attack the messenger instead, accusing the people of vague crimes I can't prove, and hope somebody believes me instead of them.
The problem is that you are no longer a sovereign citizen.
You have voluntarily given up your rights, and agreed in writing to a contractual system in which you must obey the government which is now the sovereign, and you its subject.
You did this through a series of contracts beginning with your voluntary application for a social security number, and continuing to your driver’s license, bank accounts, voter registration, passport, and several other legal contracts in which you voluntarily gave up your sovereign status.
To be a sovereign in today’s world would literally require revoking your signature on all governmental and banking contracts you have ever signed, which would make it impossible to work or to participate in the current monetary system.
You would have to deal strictly in cash or barter, you could not hold title to land or property, you would be constantly harassed for not having proper identification, and subject to having your possessions seized for lack of documentation of income or purchase.
The people who have set up this system were very careful to make it very difficult to escape. You can do it, but re- establishing your sovereignty pretty much requires living in the wilderness and separation yourself from society.
The truth is if you want to live in society with all of its comfort and convenience, you must sell out your sovereignty.
I read somewhere that (western) towns in the latter 1800s required guns to be checked in on arrival to town and checked out when leaving. A sensible rule for those times. Seems like Wyatt Earp had a part in this enforcement (I think).
I read somewhere that (western) towns in the latter 1800s required guns to be checked in on arrival to town and checked out when leaving. A sensible rule for those times. Seems like Wyatt Earp had a part in this enforcement (I think).
Sensible... but a violation of the 2nd amendment.
I guess sheriffs were essentially declaring martial law when they did that. Only in towns where violence was rampant and overwhelming what little law enforcement was there... and even overwhelming law-abiding citizens who carried. It happened sometimes.
But it actually happened pretty seldom. Most towns had no such requirements, because they didn't need them. Most citizens didn't bother carrying, and those who did, carried mostly to use on wolves or rattlesnakes.
Stories of "The Wild West", and shootouts at the OK Corral etc., were very rare. It almost never happened. Most towns were peaceful and boring.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment, did so not to make society perfect... but to make society safer that it would be if citizens were forbidden to own and carry firearms. Most big cities have such (unconstitutional) bans in place today, to various degrees... and are dangerous places to live, as a direct result. They would not be 100% safe if everyone was permitted to carry... but they would be safer than they are today.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 03-06-2013 at 11:03 AM..
Got to remember though that 200+ years ago having a weapon was at times almost essential for your very survival.
One thing about those old western movies. The town folks were generally portrayed as weak jelly fish who ran from the very thought of violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of them had seen service during the Civil War and were exceptionally well trained in the use of fire arms and killing (if necessary). Likely they desired a bit of sanity, peace and quite in their later personal lives and so, were willing to pass such laws.
The 2nd amendment is simple and clear: For such-and-such reasons, ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons can't be taken away or restricted.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, could have put in exceptions for "more than ten guns per household", or "Feds can't restrict guns but states still can", or "except for reasonable restrictions decided by legislators" or "except around schools or post offices", etc. But they didn't. And that omission was careful and deliberate.
The reasons why you should be able to own and carry a gun, are many. Knowing a victim may be carrying, can make a thief or mugger think twice. It can also make a corrupt sheriff who wants your property or your daughter, think twice. Or make a poisonous legislature who wants to put, say, all blacks into chains or all Jews into an oven, think twice if those blacks or Jews (and/or their friends) own guns and regularly have them with them.
But the main reason you should always have the right to own and carry guns, has to do with the basic reason the country was founded.
Hundreds of years ago, people started coming to this continent, mostly from Europe and adjacent areas, to get away from the restrictions and oppression placed on them by kings, feudal lords, etc. - often placed without their consent. They came here to get a fresh start, and eventually they came up with the idea of having a country where the citizen's decisions would be supreme. No king would tell him what to do, no politbureau, no feudal lord. Even the government that was necessary, would be elected by the citizen - and could be kicked out by that citizen.
This idea was a first in the history of mankind's attempts to form large countries, outside of a few ancient and unwieldy democracies such as the one tried by ancient Greece. It was soon dubbed "The Great American Experiment" - the idea that no one could overrule the citizen's own decisions, other than government officials that the citizen could kick out if he didn't like them. In a word, the citizen would be sovereign - subject to no rule above his own.
The idea behind the Great American Experiment, assumed that individual people will do a better job running their own lives, making their own decisions, making mistakes, taking the consequences themselves, and learning from them; than an all-powerful government will do making those decisions for those people. And that includes making decisions on how and when to protect yourself and your loved ones... which necessarily includes YOU deciding what instrument(s) you will use to do it.
The freedom to own and carry any gun you want, is the ultimate expression of the sovereignity of the private citizen. Nobody (and that means NOBODY) can try to mess with him without facing the severest consequences. The sovereign citizen's own decisions, good or bad, are the ultimate determinant of his fate and his life. And his ability to own and carry deadly weapons, capable of harming or even killing those around him and subject ONLY to his own personal decision, is what makes sure it stays that way.
Though your right to carry must be absolute and inviolate, that doesn't mean you MUST carry, of course. Even where the right to carry a gun is not infringed, most people don't bother. But they must always have the RIGHT to carry if they decide they need to - a right no one may interfere with, and a decision no one can take away from them.
Even the possiblity that a man with bad judgment might use his weapon to unjustly threaten, injure or kill an innocent person, is not sufficient reason to take away EVERYONE'S right to own and carry such weapons. The Framers made the hard decision that even with the occasional (and inevitable) injury or death of an innocent person at the hands of a careless or criminal gun owner, the right of all people to be gun owners must be held sacrosanct... that society would be better off under those circumstances, than under a system where government could restrict citizens' rights to own and carry weapons. Partly because the Framers knew that the power to restrict that right, was ultimately the power to take it away completely - and the Framers knew that society would be worse off under those conditions, than under the conditions where an occasional mistake or criminal's act could result in an injury, possibly a fatal one.
Under the Great American Experiment, people were to be free to make their own decisions and take the consequences of them... including the bad or wrong decisions. Assigning third parties to make those decisions for them, would make them worse off, not better. And so government's only function, was restricted to only protecting those rights of the people. NOT making decisions to "help" them... even if some people thought govt "helping" people was a GOOD idea.
In a very real sense, the right to own and carry a gun is the ultimate manifestation of the Great American Experiment - the ultimate manifestation of freedom. Because it is the best way to ensure that you are left alone to make your own decisions, even if some else doesn't want you to. And only if you violate someone else's rights - say, by injuring or killing an innocent person, for whatever reason - can your own ultimate rights be taken away. Not because you MIGHT - that's not a good enough reason, because anybody might. Only because you DID.
And the Framers were careful to make the 2nd amendment part of the Supreme Law of the Land, to make sure it stayed that way.
Your right to keep and bear arms, isn't just for hunting, or sporting, or even defending yourself against burglars or rapists. It's to make sure that nobody - including government - can take away your ability and your RIGHT to make your own decisions and sink or swim with the consequences yourself.
And even if someone abuses his right to keep and bear arms, injuring or even killing an innocent person... it still remains that your right to have them - the right of ALL citizens to be sovereign - is far more important than the (relatively rare) tragedy caused by people who abuse that right. The loss of sovereignity of millions of citizens, does the country far more harm than the relatively rare tragedy.
That is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms, has been held inviolate for more than 200 years - despite 200 years of opportunities to change it by amending the Constitution and its 2nd amendment. The American people have repeatedly refused to make any changes to it - a trend that shows no signs of slackening, despite the occasional tragedy or even (very rare) mass murder by criminal or insane people.
You are exactly correct.
We, The People, are the sovereigns, and the government, of whatever branch, comprise our "staff".
The Butler doesn't tell the owner how to live his life, how to run the estate. He is NOT the boss - the owner, i.e. the sovereign, is.
Self named "sovereign citizens" are dangerous kooks who are delusional and who think they are above the law. Even worse members of the sovereign citizen movement often commit crimes up to and including murdering police officers. Show me a member of the sovereign citizen movement and I will show you a criminal.
The Founders appointed us as sovereigns. Perhaps you should study our history, our institutions etc., instead of just spouting off in such infantile ways.
I'll-informed, mal-informed people are far more dangerous than We the People.
One of the greatest ironies and contradictions of the US experiment borne of rebellion is that you cannot establish an orderly, functional civilized society while also allocating unrestricted freedom to the individual to disobey societal norms and laws. It just doesn't work.
We don't allow people to run traffic lights, whether they own guys or not. If you do, you'll get pulled over and ticketed - possibly jailed, too.
We don't allow people to engage in vigilantism and murder anyone they choose with their weapon - only to use it in self defense.
We don't allow people to not show up at jury duty, to not pay taxes, to not refrain from abusing their spouses.
There are plenty of those that you as a member of society are subject to that are completely out of the realm of your own personal decision, and guns do not change that.
You, like the fools who say, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, as an excuse to take away gun ownership, are confused, seemingly beyond redemption.
You cite "actions" such as shouting "fire...", "runing lights" etc. Keeping and bearing arms, are not "actions" - misusing them are. Example, "shooting a gun in a crowded theatre".
There is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen." No person can be above the law, for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. Get used to it. http://www.city-data.com/forum/25275103-post48.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
