Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Police departments receive training in dealing with 'sovereign citizens'. Regicide?   ( latimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, sovereign citizens, Contra Costa County, Santa Rosa County, oaths of office, finches, money orders, West Memphis, monarchs  
•       •       •

9594 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 11:53 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



377 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-06 08:46:25 AM  
zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.
 
2013-04-06 08:47:53 AM  
I bet Wright was a riot during 4th of July parties.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-06 08:56:37 AM  
Best quote is at the end: Finch asked how he justified working for a government he considered illegitimate. "He told me he needed the money to live out his ideology," he said.
 
2013-04-06 08:57:30 AM  
Is the teacher named P Barnes?

totalfratmove.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 09:27:29 AM  
Many sovereigns - including the father-son team in the Arkansas shooting - hold seminars of their own in which they charge for lessons on redemption and tax avoidance. "You pay them in cash for them to tell you money has no value," Finch said.

Laughter OL
 
2013-04-06 09:30:10 AM  
I found a sovereign in the comments.

Mr. Wiggles at 4:01 AM April 06, 2013

It's really strange how people always want to confront someone who wants to be left alone, If you ask me I think the one who messes with the person who wants to be by him or herself is the one who needs his head checked out.

I have a book on this subject and I do read about what these guys are talking about and what they do say is true to a point the problem with their message is that some of the laws they speak of has been changed by stacking law o  top of laws and or they are now outdated.

Just leave em alone.


Freak!
 
2013-04-06 09:41:45 AM  
Leave Reggie alone!
 
2013-04-06 09:43:07 AM  
"When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."
 
2013-04-06 09:47:46 AM  
Remember: title IV flag says you're schwag.

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 09:57:51 AM  
TFA: "To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said.

Sounds like somebody isn't sufficiently respecting their authoratah.
 
2013-04-06 09:59:24 AM  
LOL... Should have read a couple more paragraphs before posting

TFA: "Your antennae should immediately go up," he tells officers. "They refuse to recognize your authority, and that creates a dangerous situation."
 
2013-04-06 10:19:39 AM  
Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:35 AM  
sovereigns

If they don't want to play by the rules, the don't deserve a euphemistic title.  "Dangerous assholes" is staying.
 
2013-04-06 10:38:01 AM  
Hey US:  If you are a big enough company.  You feel you can do that too.  They probably owe more in taxes too.
 
2013-04-06 10:49:42 AM  
Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.
 
2013-04-06 10:50:14 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Is the teacher named P Barnes?

[totalfratmove.com image 590x300]


Yup, P Barnes knows what to do.
 
2013-04-06 11:20:31 AM  

PreMortem: Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.


As long as I get to decide who we institutionalize.
 
2013-04-06 11:21:30 AM  
Came for P. Barnes. Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-04-06 11:26:54 AM  
I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.
 
2013-04-06 11:32:58 AM  

Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.


At which point unless they're Les Stroud living completely off the grid in Alaska, they are still a burden to some infrastructure in the country.

And we all know how well it turns out sometimes when someone goes of and lives in a mountain shed on government land for 20 years, right, Ted Kaczynski ?
 
2013-04-06 11:42:01 AM  

Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.


I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

dl.dropbox.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 11:50:54 AM  

BullBearMS: I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...


Just because you're crazy doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
 
2013-04-06 11:57:53 AM  

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.


Politics is the new religion.
 
2013-04-06 11:58:52 AM  

BullBearMS: Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.

I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


Except these people are in fact terrorists, and dangerous.
 
2013-04-06 11:59:40 AM  
 
2013-04-06 12:00:15 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 12:00:24 PM  

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.


'zactly.

FTA: Once he threatened to sue a deputy who pulled him over.

How's that work, seeing as how you don't recognize government authority, sovereign?
 
2013-04-06 12:00:43 PM  
You think Bill and Hillary play by the same rules you do?
The Bush Dynasty? (die-nasty)

Really?

Know what makes a religion a religion? When it gets enough muscle to be reckoned with. Sovereign Citizens lack only this one feature, or you don't understand the Clintons. Or, inner city gangs that go nationwide.
 
2013-04-06 12:02:25 PM  
Shoot on sight?
 
2013-04-06 12:02:40 PM  
BullBearMS:
I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw
 
2013-04-06 12:03:33 PM  
After what they did in West memphis in 2010, I say shoot first, Ask questions later.

/ knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.
 
2013-04-06 12:03:59 PM  

Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.


I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.
 
2013-04-06 12:05:49 PM  

Mister Peejay: BullBearMS:
I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw


That's awesome... I'm freaking crying
 
2013-04-06 12:07:23 PM  

Generation_D: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

At which point unless they're Les Stroud living completely off the grid in Alaska, they are still a burden to some infrastructure in the country.

And we all know how well it turns out sometimes when someone goes of and lives in a mountain shed on government land for 20 years, right, Ted Kaczynski ?


Ted was a pretty big user of the US Post Office though.
 
2013-04-06 12:09:57 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.


But you're not a control freak, right?

I always love this counter response that basically says that the government owns all of us because we used or once used some service that was provided or regulated by the government.

Non contaminated food exists on numerous farms and slaughterhouses without a single government official doing anything.  It's surprisingly easy for families that eat what they raise/grow to just follow basic sanitary practices even without the watchful eye of the government.

They paid for most of that stuff whether they wanted too or not.  If they put fuel in their vehicles and purchased tires, they've paid for access to the roads and bridges for example.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:31 PM  
Regicide?

Well great, now I'm going to have to go fire up Halo 4 again. It hasn't even been 12 hours since I played last...
 
2013-04-06 12:10:42 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."


That is beautiful.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:52 PM  
The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists?  A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda.  While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning in the last few years.  News agencies should really refrain from using it.  It is now commonly applied to any sort of criminal, rather than according to its actual meaning.
 
2013-04-06 12:12:40 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.


Whats fun is if you required payment in gold since they wouldn't recognize paper money
 
2013-04-06 12:12:55 PM  
You are infringing on my freedom of movement.
 
2013-04-06 12:13:08 PM  

hardinparamedic: / knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.


That has to hurt, to see your own father shot and dying like that.
 
2013-04-06 12:14:33 PM  
The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.
 
2013-04-06 12:15:55 PM  
I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.
 
2013-04-06 12:15:57 PM  
"He had renounced his U.S. citizenship."

a) that doesn't excuse you from any laws or taxes

B) deport the farking moran
 
2013-04-06 12:18:57 PM  

Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda. While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.


No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?
 
2013-04-06 12:19:48 PM  

tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.


That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does.  Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?
 
2013-04-06 12:20:58 PM  

bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.


In which case I hope we see a lot more repeats of that that father and son team.
 
2013-04-06 12:23:07 PM  
I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.
 
2013-04-06 12:27:30 PM  
So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.
 
2013-04-06 12:28:54 PM  

JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.


THAT is why I sympathize with them despite disagreeing with a lot what they do.

How the government responds to a bunch of C rate rabble-rousers should tell us how the government would deal with any truly effective movement for change, especially one that would push for more individual autonomy.  It's also highly effective in weeding out the high grade authoritarians among us.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:10 PM  
So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:34 PM  
Anybody know what happened to P Barnes' taser-bait? I'm curious as to how that all worked out.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:55 PM  
what BS. the man is going to make use of old school physical training and a BatMan Utility Belt filled with weapons and restraints the second they feel someone crosses a perceived line. these are people who receive two weeks paid vacation for killing an unarmed civilian.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:57 PM  

pedrop357: The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does. Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?


It's not that they do not want to participate in society, it is that they reject social standards for cooperation and seek to play life by their own arbitrary rules while remaining in society.
 
2013-04-06 12:31:04 PM  

pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?


No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.
 
2013-04-06 12:31:58 PM  

JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.


fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.
 
2013-04-06 12:32:20 PM  

bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.


and you wonder why they're just shooting the cops right away...............
 
2013-04-06 12:32:44 PM  
Treat them like Emperor Norton.
 
2013-04-06 12:32:53 PM  

lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.


Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.
 
2013-04-06 12:34:31 PM  
I'm pretty pro sovereign citizens... provided they renounce US citizenship and agree to be parachuted down into Somalia. I'd even be fine with the gubmint paying for a one way trip.
 
2013-04-06 12:35:36 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.


You may want to check this link.
 
2013-04-06 12:36:25 PM  
I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.
 
2013-04-06 12:37:10 PM  

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)
 
2013-04-06 12:38:12 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda. While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?


I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.  Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists.  We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops.  While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either.  The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda.  The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops.  Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom.  If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.
 
2013-04-06 12:39:54 PM  

Ima4nic8or: Fuggin Bizzy: Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda. While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?

I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.  Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists.  We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops.  While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either.  The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda.  The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops.  Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom.  If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.


Unless they are intentionally breaking the laws by speeding or using fake license plates, and thus intentionally creating confrontations that can lead to violence.
 
2013-04-06 12:40:19 PM  

earthworm2.0: I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.


Last I read, police kill around 300-400 people each year, with nearly all of them being classified as self-defense (usually by the department that employs the officer).  Non-police kill around 50-70 police officers each year, with all of them being considered murder.  In a typical year as many or more police officers will die in traffic crashes as are killed by non-police.
 
2013-04-06 12:40:25 PM  
 We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops
But some cops need killing
 
2013-04-06 12:40:53 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.

fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.


You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?

Yet somehow you can still look outside and I doubt it much resembles a warzone (assuming you're not in Detroit).
 
2013-04-06 12:42:35 PM  

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


Many, many, many moons ago I worked for a small mortgage servicer and these guys were a frequent thorn in our sides. They'd mail on fake checks with explanatory pamphlets that would say since paper was good enough for the govy, should be good enough for us. They'd file fake release of liens for their mortgage, and then contest the case through ridiculous, nonsensical (but amusing) filings that read like a new Nicholas Cage movie.

Too bad they didn't stay harmless nutters.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:44 PM  
I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people.  They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws.  Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens.  What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used.  What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws.  Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes?  Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:47 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?

No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.


Oh fark off.

Everyone's always making a joke when their straight post in a sea of straight posts is responded to in a manner they don't like.

Basically this is the Jon Stewart car; talk politics, then go "gee shucks I'm a comedian" when someone calls him on his shiat.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:49 PM  

pedrop357: lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.


If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.
 
2013-04-06 12:44:27 PM  

BigLuca: I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people.  They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws.  Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens.  What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used.  What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws.  Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes?  Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.


Perhaps we could compromise and make it easier (or stop deliberately making it hard) for people to live more on their own.

When the law treats minor "off the grid" no different than completely "off the grid", why bother being half-assed about it?
 
2013-04-06 12:44:51 PM  
Ya know, there are some places in the middle east(or Detroit) where if you used CIA airlines to drop these sovereigns off, without weapons,
It would be farking hilarious to see them challenge local laws. Especially that big new tattoo on their forehead dissing the locals.
All embassy's would be closed that day........

/Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.

//Yea I know, you try to deal with a person foaming at the mouth and a herd of nutjob sovereign lawyers who would be arrested as they showed up with the same infractions. Its like the free car giveaway at the cop station for all drug dealers in town.

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
 
2013-04-06 12:45:46 PM  

rustypouch: If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.


Ah, the old "if you don't like it, you can just get out" canard.  Let's try that with gay marriage or voter ID and see if anyone agrees.
 
2013-04-06 12:47:47 PM  
rustypouch:
If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?
 
2013-04-06 12:48:01 PM  
How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?
 
2013-04-06 12:48:09 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 12:48:27 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?


if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?
 
2013-04-06 12:50:09 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?


Sovereign citizens are not mountain men. They are just people who want to play by rules they make up as they go along. Like the postal worker mentioned in TFA.
 
2013-04-06 12:50:28 PM  

sheep snorter: pasted idiot image here


I bet you like small penis jokes because you're scared of guns, aren't ya?
 
2013-04-06 12:50:45 PM  
And exactly how are these people different than anarchists?
 
2013-04-06 12:51:21 PM  

dksuddeth: sheep snorter: pasted idiot image here

I bet you like small penis jokes because you're scared of guns, aren't ya?


This thread is getting farking hilarious!
 
2013-04-06 12:51:53 PM  
If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.
 
2013-04-06 12:52:53 PM  

dksuddeth: rustypouch:
If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?


For a clear, very modern example of this, look at how the Colorado government is proposing to deal with marijuana legalization.

The people voted, they said they wanted marijuana legalized for people over 21.  The legislature could have read that as mandate to tread carefully with the regulatory power they were granted, but instead are choosing to rule, regulate, tax, and prohibit as much as possible.  The end result will be one only trivially different then criminalization and many of the problems that legalization was supposed to solve will remain.
The government certainly isn't honoring the spirit of the ballot initiative, and in some cases are subverting the actual word of the initiative as well.
 
2013-04-06 12:52:54 PM  
I know one of these guys, who refused to pay income tax. It wasn't that big a deal, though, since he didn't have any income. He also made his own licence plate. But I think he stopped using it when his son convinced him what a stupid idea that was.
 
2013-04-06 12:53:22 PM  
Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.
 
2013-04-06 12:53:56 PM  

rebelyell2006: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

Sovereign citizens are not mountain men. They are just people who want to play by rules they make up as they go along. Like the postal worker mentioned in TFA.


That is probably the best, most concise description I've read yet.
 
2013-04-06 12:54:16 PM  
I feel like my goal in life, now, is to become a judge so I can have a flag with gold fringe.  Hell, I'll even throw in a UN flag.
 
2013-04-06 12:54:18 PM  

pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?


The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?
 
2013-04-06 12:55:16 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.


So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone?  Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone?  Doubtful.
 
2013-04-06 12:55:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?

The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?


That's between the ISP and the government.
 
2013-04-06 12:56:15 PM  

Makh: Hey US:  If you are a big enough company.  You feel you can do that too.  They probably owe more in taxes too.


Burma Shave
 
2013-04-06 12:56:18 PM  

pedrop357: No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.


Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.

There are plenty of small nations and parts of the world they could easily go to so they could relax in the peace of using only 'real' currency, no pesky governments to make sure that the person upstream doesn't dump sludge from oil wells and raw sewage in your drinking water and no hassle from the those mean old coppers making sure your POS 1974 GMC pickup with bad tires and busted back glass asking it should be on the road.  Go there, and rejoice in nirvana that being a sovereign will bring to all and prove to the rest of the world how wrong the idea of a 'social contract' is.
 
2013-04-06 12:56:30 PM  

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


Citation, please, regarding SCOTUS and arrests for lacking an ID.
 
2013-04-06 12:57:19 PM  

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?

The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?

That's between the ISP and the government.


Then the so-called 'sovereign citizen' isn't playing by his own rules; he's supporting and obeying a government he does not recognize as legitimate.
 
2013-04-06 12:57:35 PM  
Meh, the cops treat everyone who disrespects their authority the same, they get all tasey and bullety.   Do we really need to make distinctions?
 
2013-04-06 12:59:03 PM  
What annoys me most about these people is that "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.
A citizen is a member of a political community or society. Sovereignty means not recognising any power higher than your own. You cannot be a member of a group if you aren't bound by the rules of that group.
 
2013-04-06 12:59:47 PM  

wingnut396: Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.


Ahh.  When the government acts the way it does to citizens in this country, "blanket of peace" is not the euphemism I would choose.

Just say "the government protects all of us, thus it owns us" and just farking be done with it.
 
2013-04-06 01:00:32 PM  

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.

So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone?  Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone?  Doubtful.


That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.
 
2013-04-06 01:02:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Then the so-called 'sovereign citizen' isn't playing by his own rules; he's supporting and obeying a government he does not recognize as legitimate.


Are you sure you're not applying your own definition f what their rules are, aka strawman?

He's voluntarily interacting with an individual or company, how is that not playing by his own rules?
 
2013-04-06 01:02:12 PM  
It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.
 
2013-04-06 01:02:31 PM  
I can't believe that all of you are taking the side of Big Borther in this. We are all free white men (women and minorites do not count). Just look at this blatant abuse of power that all of you are championing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqZBeDW3rWY
 
2013-04-06 01:02:36 PM  

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


That's all well and good until something goes wrong. If a crime is committed on their property, they still want police protection. If someone gets sick or injured, they still want to use ambulances and hospitals. If there's a fire they still want the FD to come out.

And even then, you're assuming they won't want sewer hookups, electricity, telecom connections of any kind, own a car, use roads, bank, have any kind of insurance, etc.

What happens to Rugged Individualist when there's a severe drought? He dies or he goes on the dole, and we pick up the tab.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:16 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


California laughs at your post.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:51 PM  

pedrop357: rustypouch: If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, you can just get out" canard.  Let's try that with gay marriage or voter ID and see if anyone agrees.


But those people are actively trying to make the country a better place. Sovereign citizens seem to be  taking advantage of everything that a prosperous, stable country has to offer, while resenting having to contribute. If these people want to be left alone, let's go all out. If I had the power, I'd refund every cent of taxes they had ever paid, and exempt them from all future taxes, under the condition that they wouldn't have access to anything that government provides.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:59 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.


I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.
 
2013-04-06 01:04:53 PM  

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:00 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

That's all well and good until something goes wrong. If a crime is committed on their property, they still want police protection. If someone gets sick or injured, they still want to use ambulances and hospitals. If there's a fire they still want the FD to come out.

And even then, you're assuming they won't want sewer hookups, electricity, telecom connections of any kind, own a car, use roads, bank, have any kind of insurance, etc.

What happens to Rugged Individualist when there's a severe drought? He dies or he goes on the dole, and we pick up the tab.


Awful lot of "mights" in there.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:16 PM  
Sovereigns assert that the U.S. Treasury has set up a secret money account for every American, which can be reclaimed through a bizarre set of legal filings known as redemption. They say everything from taxes to traffic tickets can be disposed of by drawing on the secret Treasury accounts through elaborate legal claims and mountains of paperwork.

So the government set aside money (which has no value) for *every* citizen to access as long as you fill out the right forms. But they don't tell anyone about these accounts. That's like me setting aside college funds for my kids and not telling them, and just letting the money sit there. (which in reality, I'd set aide college funds for my kids, not tell them about it, and the use the funds for a TV) And you can use this money (which comes from taxes) to pay for taxes? There's a divide by zero error in there somewhere.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:50 PM  
So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.
 
2013-04-06 01:06:04 PM  
They had me when I could keep Asian Hookers in my personal dungeon.
 
2013-04-06 01:06:26 PM  

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.


100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?
 
2013-04-06 01:10:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


Can we do that with Mexicans as well...or is that not allowed since they're only "undocumented Democrats"
 
2013-04-06 01:12:15 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.

100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?


Good point.  I meant 100% not in the absolute sense, but 100% in the relative sense.

People (falsely) claim that one can live "off the grid" , BUT then they usually follow up by with some caveat that basically opens up the door for people to be treated as though they're completely "on" the grid the moment they have any interaction.
So, let's say we have our caveman living far away from anything, using no government services.  Every now and then he does have a desire to interact with people "in town", so he registers one vehicle, keeps up on licensing, etc.
That singular interaction is used as justification for the government to regulate everything, far beyond the vehicle, no differently than if the person lived in the city down the street from city hall.  Ie., now his cave has to have running water, meet building code, etc.

It's this all-or-nothing approach that seems to factor into some of these people taking the "nothing" approach.
 
2013-04-06 01:12:23 PM  
Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...
 
2013-04-06 01:14:29 PM  

atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


Bingo.

Look at the degree to which they justify government power over people-hey you use the internet which the federal government had a hand in building 40 years ago, thus you have to tolerate the local government telling you your hand built cabin 20 miles from nowhere has to meet urban building standards.
 
2013-04-06 01:15:52 PM  
BigLuca:
I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.


the founders should have done the same thing as well instead of starting to shoot the kings soldiers
 
2013-04-06 01:21:08 PM  

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.

100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?

Good point.  I meant 100% not in the absolute sense, but 100% in the relative sense.

People (falsely) claim that one can live "off the grid" , BUT then they usually follow up by with some caveat that basically opens up the door for people to be treated as though they're completely "on" the grid the moment they have any interaction.
So, let's say we have our caveman living far away from anything, using no government services.  Every now and then he does have a desire to interact with people "in town", so he registers one vehicle, keeps up on licensing, etc.
That singular interaction is used as justification for the government to regulate everything, far beyond the vehicle, no differently than if the person lived in the city down the street from city hall.  Ie., now his cave has to have running water, meet building code, etc.

It's this all-or-nothing approach that seems to factor into some of these people taking the "nothing" approach.


Hmmmm. Some of my home is not up to code, but that has no real impact until I try and sell it, and in doing so, interact with society. Is someone really going around and telling our caveman what kind of cave he can have?
 
2013-04-06 01:21:21 PM  

pedrop357: cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)


The fish stocked by the government?
 
2013-04-06 01:21:26 PM  
How should police deal with "Sovereign Citizens"

trbimg.comView Full Size


leisureguy.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


The same way they deal with "Newspaper Delivery Ladies", apparently.

 
2013-04-06 01:23:01 PM  

bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.


Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary
 
2013-04-06 01:25:40 PM  
Most "sovereigns" I know simultaneously refuse to acknowledge government, while happily applying for government disability handouts.

Look, police can be--and often ARE--douchebags. But claiming not to need license plates, a driver's license, etc. makes YOU just as much of a douchebag.
 
2013-04-06 01:26:07 PM  

atomicmask: So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.


gifrific.comView Full Size


Anyone who doesn't is, buy the new ObamOrwellian definition, a "terrorist".
 
2013-04-06 01:27:48 PM  

atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.
 
2013-04-06 01:28:38 PM  
While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?
 
2013-04-06 01:28:55 PM  
Doesn't matter to me. I couldn't claim Sovereign Citizenship if I wanted to. I was born on a military base which is U.S. property, so I am a U.S citizen whether I like it or not (which I do).
 
2013-04-06 01:29:18 PM  

BigLuca: maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.


I agree with the non violence approach, violence begets violence. But now almost every city in the US has a SWAT team. I live in a city of ≈125,000 people and we have TWO separate SWAT teams financed by a grant from the Federal government. What the frick do we need even one SWAT team. If a SWAT team shows up they are trained to use special weapons and tactics, so what do you think they will do? Having them around off times jacks up the situation and just having them there makes the situation more tense. The government is totally out of control.
 
2013-04-06 01:29:18 PM  
Heh.  This thread brought out the "libertarian" thread shiatting troll accounts pretty quick.  I see a few of the regular "liberals are gonna take mah guns" people here as well.
 
2013-04-06 01:30:14 PM  

sirgrim: pedrop357: cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)

The fish stocked by the government?


Yes, because all fish are stocked by the government.  Before the government came along, fish didn't exist in any rivers, lakes, streams, much less the vast oceans.  They never moved around either.  One of the reasons our Navy has so many carrier groups is to continuously replenish the supply of aquatic life in all seven oceans.

Let's say the government did stock it.  So he goes out and gets a fishing license just to play nice.  Now what?
 
2013-04-06 01:30:26 PM  
Oh, so I can make my own license plate now?
happynameday.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 01:31:29 PM  

Corn_Fed: atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...

From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.


Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.
 
2013-04-06 01:33:20 PM  

pedrop357: lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.


There's one.
 
2013-04-06 01:34:21 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?


That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...
 
2013-04-06 01:36:08 PM  

atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary


And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.
 
2013-04-06 01:36:09 PM  

atomicmask: Corn_Fed: atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...

From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.

Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.


Utter nonsense. There have been PLENTY of cases where power-hungry cops have overstepped their boundaries on EVERY race/ethnicity, and when its caught on video, we ALWAYS fault the pig cop here on Fark. This sovereign business is not like that. This is people inventing fantasy "rights" which don't exist, and then tying up the courts with bogus crap. They are conspiracy wackos.
 
2013-04-06 01:37:49 PM  

lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


Your mom's two.
 
2013-04-06 01:37:59 PM  

lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:25 PM  

maxalt: BigLuca: maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.

I agree with the non violence approach, violence begets violence. But now almost every city in the US has a SWAT team. I live in a city of ≈125,000 people and we have TWO separate SWAT teams financed by a grant from the Federal government. What the frick do we need even one SWAT team. If a SWAT team shows up they are trained to use special weapons and tactics, so what do you think they will do? Having them around off times jacks up the situation and just having them there makes the situation more tense. The government is totally out of control.


Still waiting on that citation.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:32 PM  

Corn_Fed: atomicmask: Corn_Fed: atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...

From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.

Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.

Utter nonsense. There have been PLENTY of cases where power-hungry cops have overstepped their boundaries on EVERY race/ethnicity, and when its caught on video, we ALWAYS fault the pig cop here on Fark. This sovereign business is not like that. This is people inventing fantasy "rights" which don't exist, and then tying up the courts with bogus crap. They are conspiracy wackos.


Yes they are wackos, but again, can you name the crime of handing over large amounts of paperwork to a cop? What code is it? What law? Refusing to incriminate yourself USED to be apart of our rights, now it is suddenly terrorism? If the guy refuses to identify and has done something illegal, take his ass downtown. That is fine, however labeling everyone a terrorist because GOSH THEY DIDNT KISS MY ASS, BETTER SHOOT THEM! Is not good policy for anyone.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:55 PM  

atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.


Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.
 
2013-04-06 01:41:27 PM  

pedrop357: Ahh.  When the government acts the way it does to citizens in this country, "blanket of peace" is not the euphemism I would choose.

Just say "the government protects all of us, thus it owns us" and just farking be done with it


You know, you have opened my eyes.  I was going to go out have lunch with my family.  Now I see the futility of it.  I forgot about the roving bands of government agents with automatic weapons, demanding tribute at every corner before letting me proceed.  I was doing to answer the door, but I'm afraid it may be the local militia coming to press my under age son into combat for a the local drug lord.  I also just disconnected my water system and decided to dig my own well, because it obvious that is just another means of control.  I've also decided to let my sewage flow into the open street and down the storm drain, as that once it off my property, it is not longer my problem.

Thank you sir, for highlight that this is indeed an illegitimate government worthy of nothing but scorn.

Unless I need to sue them, then the courts are a-okay.

I just hope my rifles don't jam.  I may need them at the festival late tonight.  You know how unruly those get when the jack booted thugs come in and start busting everyone's head for no reason.
 
2013-04-06 01:41:47 PM  

atomicmask: If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


Yes, I know. Its as if we 'libs' have things like a shared sense of humanity and a shared intolerance of assholes. Funny how that works.
 
2013-04-06 01:42:12 PM  

atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..


You seem to be confusing Fark Politics tab types with real liberals.
 
2013-04-06 01:42:45 PM  

FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.


Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.
 
2013-04-06 01:43:27 PM  

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


Why not leave them alone anyways? If you buy gas, you're paying for roads. Ditto for hundreds of other things. Even if a person pays no income tax, he's paying taxes. Probably in excess of the services received.
 
2013-04-06 01:44:26 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...

Yes, I know. Its as if we 'libs' have things like a shared sense of humanity and a shared intolerance of assholes. Funny how that works.


Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...

Funny how you squeel when the right wing does it, but when the law picks on the people you dislike its great! MARCH ON COMRADE! right?
Just saying its quite hypocritical of you.
 
2013-04-06 01:44:49 PM  

lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


You honestly don't understand the particulars and how there are a lot of similarities, do you?

Both average citizens and so-called "sovereign citizens" will both have their primary interactions with law enforcement officers over minor traffic things or 'suspicious person' stops.  People in both groups may choose to exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, not show ID, etc. and the police already treat average people with quite a bit of contempt for exercising those rights.

NOW we have police groups whipping up hysteria about 3rd rate groups who have occasionally used violence, and nearly always exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, etc.

The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers.  The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."

If you don't see the danger in that, then you're part of the problem.
 
2013-04-06 01:46:36 PM  

pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.


Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?
 
2013-04-06 01:47:58 PM  
 
2013-04-06 01:48:26 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.
 
2013-04-06 01:48:46 PM  
Anyone want to make a Venn diagram with the overlap between sort of old traditional hippies and more modern incarnations (occupy, etc) vs  soverieign citizen and various traditional individualists.
 
2013-04-06 01:49:48 PM  

atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...


Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?
 
2013-04-06 01:51:04 PM  

BullBearMS: atomicmask: Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

During a legislative debate in 2010 over the Police Department's use of stop-and-frisk encounters, the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, met with the governor at the time, David A. Paterson, to defend the tactic's importance as a crime-fighting tool.

According to a state senator, Eric Adams, who was at the meeting at the governor's office in Midtown Manhattan, the commissioner said that young black and Hispanic men were the focus of the stops because "he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home they could be stopped by the police."

Senator Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who is a former captain in the New York Police Department, recalled the meeting as he testified in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday, as a trial over the constitutionality of the department's use of the tactic entered its third week.

Respect my Authoratah indeed.


That is exactly what I am talking about, its bullshiat. Happening to a minority or one of these sovereign citizens. People shouldn't celebrate police abuse and new labels the cops come up with, if they apply to angry isolationist whites or blacks and latinos just walking down the street. fark that, they have enough authority as it is to uphold the law, they don't need new labels to make things more easy to abuse people.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:17 PM  

pedrop357: The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers. The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."


It's an issue of where to draw the line... I mean, I want the police to be able to "stop and frisk" poor brown people in the innter cities, but I can't have them infringing on my rights!
 
2013-04-06 01:51:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.


If you ask any federal prosecutor, and he's honest with you, he'll tell you that we're all criminals. Each and every one of us commits at least one (probably several) federal felonies every day. Read The Clean Water Act and its associated case law. There's no question that we all violate that one almost daily. And, before you say that you don't violate it, be advised that those tasked with enforcing the law can't agree on what constitutes a violation, the courts that hear the cases can't agree on what constitutes a violation, and the Supreme Court seems to just flip a coin when presented with a CWA case, so don't tell me you know that you don't violate it. The CWA aside, there are thousands of criminal laws and ten thousand regulations with criminal penalties, and that most of these "crimes" are victimless; if you're minding your own business and not bothering anybody in the slightest, that's no guarantee that you are acting legally.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:24 PM  

atomicmask: FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.

Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.


True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:13 PM  

atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.


So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:28 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.
 
2013-04-06 01:53:07 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...

Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?


Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.
 
2013-04-06 01:54:33 PM  

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?
 
2013-04-06 01:54:42 PM  

FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.


Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
 
2013-04-06 01:56:36 PM  

lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?


You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?
 
2013-04-06 01:56:46 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.

Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."


Indeed.

But we are not a democracy. Thank god.
 
2013-04-06 01:58:42 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.

So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.


No, retard.  The social contract is worthless without good people, and with good people it's irrelevant.  You can have all the "contracts" you want, but people who don't care about non-existent contracts will kill you and take what you have.  Even just decent people don't need the same "contract" in order to not harm or rob you.

The "social contract" as used by others always seems to come up as a grant of power of "society" or government over people far beyond anything necessary for a society to function and serves to largely coerce and compel all people to completely participate in, and by extension, be completely ruled by that society.  In short, any talk of "off the grid" or similar concepts always results in someone brandishing this non-existent contract to justify nearly every incursion, regulation, rule, tax, etc. applied to that person.

A caveman who lives 50 miles from the nearest town over 100 people will still be ruled and regulated (or at least they will attempt it) no differently than the person in the center of a large metropolitan area.  The justification will be this "societal contract" and various attenuation(s) and contortions will be engaged in to justify subjecting him to numerous laws that barely make sense in a dense urban area.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:03 PM  
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:56 PM  

pedrop357: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?

Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.


Society is exactly what 50.001% of the people say it is. That's how society is defined. But, let's be honest, it's never that low. Society is what more like 80% of people say it is, the rest of the squabbling is politics, not societal norms.

People who don't want to be "oppressed" by the society into which they were born are free to move to an uninhabited island somewhere (there's plenty of them in Palau). But you better be prepared to be self-sufficient and produce some goods or services that you can trade for what you don't have.

The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.
 
2013-04-06 02:00:53 PM  

atomicmask: Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.


No, it took me a good few years, but I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty good understanding now of your kind. For starters, the smug self-proclaimed intellectual superiority is no surprise at all.

Oh, and equality goes out the window the instant there's no higher institution to maintain minority rights. Just thought you'd like to know that.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:24 PM  

JesseL: You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?


Not necessarily. I think sovereign citizens are terrorists. How many of them are there? IDGAF. It's kind of up to them whether they choose to self label, intentionally break the law, and shoot at cops when they get called out on their bullshiat.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:59 PM  

pedrop357: tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.

That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does.  Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?


No, people who want to live away from society do so.  Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do.  These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore.  I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s.  They were attention whores, pure and simple.  They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got.  Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.
 
2013-04-06 02:02:03 PM  

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?


I honestly don't. You have to assume that someone could be a criminal before you decide to question him in your search. Now, if he does something stupid like refuse to show you his ID, or flees, or pulls a gun, then you probably just had your suspicions confirmed. If not for the crime in question, then for some other boneheaded idea that the person thinks they don't have to cooperate with a police investigation because they are special.
 
2013-04-06 02:03:32 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


No, sheep don't have the dexterity to operate firearms.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:17 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.


And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.


"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:23 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


That is so deep and clever...and naive.
 
2013-04-06 02:05:04 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.

And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.


Exactly. Not "as many governments as there are people."
 
2013-04-06 02:06:02 PM  

lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.


You left out right also.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:35 PM  

atomicmask: FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


Amazing how its all about how superior you absolutely have to feel to the rest of us plebes. Just another disenfranchised authoritarian.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:53 PM  

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Oh, you noticed that, did you?
 
2013-04-06 02:08:48 PM  

pedrop357: sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?

That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...


People scoff ( or may be afraid ) at the idea of our country becoming a police state or under military law.
They seem to think that the USA is to great to fall and have forgotten world history. The bigger you are.....
When Russian troops train on public streets with Chicago PD in crowd control tactics, I have to wonder.
When Tennessee authorities run Police for Profit Patrols, I have to wonder.
When the DHS sets up ID checkpoints 100 miles inland from our borders, I have to wonder.
I rarely post like this because of all the snide haters who come out. Oh well,let them come.
 
2013-04-06 02:08:52 PM  

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Right and Naive are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-04-06 02:11:02 PM  
pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 02:13:00 PM  

iaazathot: No, people who want to live away from society do so. Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do. These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore. I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s. They were attention whores, pure and simple. They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got. Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.


You're talking to trolls/idiots who think that we should reform society and government every time anyone is born because otherwise it's not fair because that person never had a chance to decide what the laws/rules currently are.

And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM  

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


I live with my mom  Kittypoop

Keep those doggies trollin, Rawhide!
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM  

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We
 
2013-04-06 02:13:42 PM  
Shiat, what happened to my damn image??
 
2013-04-06 02:13:55 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.


Citation please.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:15 PM  
SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:26 PM  

sheep snorter: ...

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
 
2013-04-06 02:15:44 PM  

sirgrim: SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.


Yes there would.  Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:08 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


You certainly are oppressed. I can only hope that one day, you will overcome this tyranny.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:51 PM  

BullBearMS: LOL... Should have read a couple more paragraphs before posting

TFA: "Your antennae should immediately go up," he tells officers. "They refuse to recognize your authority, and that creates a dangerous situation."


More evidence that cops are alien overlords.
 
2013-04-06 02:18:42 PM  

pedrop357: Yes there would. Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.


To interconnect devices invented entirely to support government functions.
 
2013-04-06 02:19:01 PM  

Dwedit: You are infringing on my freedom of movement.


Take Ex-lax
 
2013-04-06 02:20:35 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions


"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."
 
2013-04-06 02:22:05 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote


And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves. And they occasionally like to "Timothy McVeigh" some unarmed sheep.
 
2013-04-06 02:22:26 PM  
please pardon the repost

feedlol.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 02:23:07 PM  
pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."
 
2013-04-06 02:23:13 PM  

Corn_Fed: And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves.


Nonono, they're the sheep! Just listen to them! "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
 
2013-04-06 02:23:15 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions

"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."


I know, companies never come up with interoperable protocols/standards on their own.

You can't connect an LG TV to a Samsung DVD player, and someone with Lotus Domino can't send email to someone with Exchange.
 
m00
2013-04-06 02:24:31 PM  
To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said

Well, people in Halloween costumes don't take your candy at gunpoint..
 
2013-04-06 02:24:58 PM  
FTA: "Even nonviolent sovereigns can cause headaches through what Finch calls "paper terrorism."


Are YOU a "paper terrorist"?


Remember, under NADA 2011, you only have to be ACCUSED to be held indefinitely - without charges, trial or recourse - until the "end of (paper terrorist) hostilities", or until hell freezes over - which ever comes first.
 
2013-04-06 02:25:15 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


And if they refuse to answer?
 
2013-04-06 02:27:03 PM  
The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:05 PM  
We used to have a solution for people like this.  Then we deinstitutionalized all the nutters.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:20 PM  

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


i1222.photobucket.comView Full Size


You're either a pretty decent troll, or a sad person.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:50 PM  

1000Monkeys: pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."


Most people here were talking about government use of roads, bullshiat "contracts", the idea that people using the internet owe allegiance to the government, and talk living off the grid, so I'm responding in kind.

I completely understand the issue behind various (at best) whacky and total horseshiat antics they engage in and it's why I don't support them.

BUT, using them as a reason to whip up hysteria about people who don't respect the authority of the police when most cops already think that those who exercise their rights are troublemakers is a great way for the police to justify even more abusive conduct towards people who stand up for their rights.

The sovereign citizen types you described would be 5th and 6th rate nobodies if the lefty authoritarians would cool their jets.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:59 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?


That is covered in the training.  It doesn't take 8 hours to teach a cop, "This guy is farking with you."
 
2013-04-06 02:28:20 PM  

Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.


says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.
 
2013-04-06 02:28:35 PM  

Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.


And armed people who don't subscribe to their bullshiat.
 
2013-04-06 02:29:47 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.


I believe they've evolved.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions

"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."


lulz
 
2013-04-06 02:30:11 PM  
We can drone strike them. If they're not Americans or members of a UN recognized nation, then they aren't protected under the laws of the United States or any treaty we as a nation have signed.

CNN Reporter: "And in other news today, senior Pentagon officials announce the dissolution of the small south Florida nations Earlistan and Smithtoria. Both nations were considered extremely hostile to American security interests after occupying US held territory."
 
2013-04-06 02:30:18 PM  

Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com image 668x401]



Here's another:

history.comView Full Size


What a "Paper Terrorist's"  "Terror Paper" might look like.


Do you think King George saw this as anything OTHER than "terrorism" - a challenge to HIS "authoritay"?
 
2013-04-06 02:32:01 PM  
If you're going to claim yourself as a sovereign citizen, you should probably back your words up with a death-triggered motorcycle-mounted hydrogen bomb and brutal glass-knife skills. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
fc06.deviantart.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 02:32:23 PM  

dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.


Well, Texan--do you support the death penalty? Yes or no?

Did you support the Iraq invasion, at the time, in 2003?

Tell the truth, Texan.
 
2013-04-06 02:32:30 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.

And if they refuse to answer?



Easy.
 
2013-04-06 02:33:17 PM  

pedrop357: I know, companies never come up with interoperable protocols/standards on their own.

You can't connect an LG TV to a Samsung DVD player


Because compatible AV connections is comparable to the breadth of standards, networking, and systems that comprise the Internet?

pedrop357: Lotus Domino can't send email to someone with Exchange.


Well, they couldn't. And then came POP, courtesy of the IETF, who was started and initially run by... oh right. Government funded researchers.
 
2013-04-06 02:35:35 PM  

HoratioGates: We used to have a solution for people like this.  Then we deinstitutionalized all the nutters.


To be less insulting and more honest, we used to have frontier they could shuffle off to.

And if they came back from the frontier a little humbled, well...
 
2013-04-06 02:36:31 PM  

dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.


I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.
 
2013-04-06 02:38:17 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]

I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We


You're thinking of Adam West.

/to the Batcave, chum!
 
2013-04-06 02:43:03 PM  

Corn_Fed: dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.


I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.
 
2013-04-06 02:43:50 PM  

ClintonKun: If you're going to claim yourself as a sovereign citizen, you should probably back your words up with a death-triggered motorcycle-mounted hydrogen bomb and brutal glass-knife skills. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
[fc06.deviantart.net image 701x965]


Annoying, poorly written book clearly cobbled together from previous shorter works.  Not much of a point besides pushing the "ooooh cool" buttons of 14 year old boys and stealing someone else's idea about information-as-pathogen.

(Summary: I though Snow Crash sucked)
 
2013-04-06 02:44:52 PM  

lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?


The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.
 
2013-04-06 02:48:49 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.


The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.
 
2013-04-06 02:49:46 PM  

pedrop357: 1000Monkeys: pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."

Most people here were talking about government use of roads, bullshiat "contracts", the idea that people using the internet owe allegiance to the government, and talk living off the grid, so I'm responding in kind.

I completely understand the issue behind various (at best) whacky and total horseshiat antics they engage in and it's why I don't support them.

BUT, using them as a reason to whip up hysteria about people who don't respect the authority of the police when most cops already think that those who exercise their rights are troublemakers is a great way for the police to justify even more abusive conduct towards people who stand up for their rights.

The sovereign citizen types you described would be 5th and 6th rate nobodies if the lefty authoritarians would cool their jets.


Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over
 
2013-04-06 02:50:01 PM  
If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1.
 
2013-04-06 02:50:58 PM  

atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


Now I remember why I had you coded red.
 
2013-04-06 02:51:14 PM  

lostcat: The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.


Ah the mark of a small minded asshole.

Solution to police problems: Just don't break any laws.  Sure, innocent people get convicted, which undermines the implied idea that those who don't break the law won't have problems with the police and/or the idea that only those who break the laws have problems with the police.

But, nothing's ever happened to you, so nobody should really worry about it.
 
2013-04-06 02:51:55 PM  
"The policeman isn't there to create disorder.  The policeman is there to preserve disorder."  -RJ Daley
 
2013-04-06 02:52:11 PM  

Precision Boobery: If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1.


I was only 2 minutes late!
 
2013-04-06 02:53:51 PM  

pedrop357: Corn_Fed: dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.


He only needs to be a little tougher and luckier than you and when you're dead it really doesn't matter to you if he gets away with it.

The question is whether a SC is more inhibited than a cop.  Trust is the belief  that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.
 
2013-04-06 02:56:45 PM  

BullBearMS: Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.

I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


What would you suggest instead, leaving out warm milk and cookies?
 
2013-04-06 02:58:03 PM  

Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over


Agreed.  fark these people.

If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things.  Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society.  Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types.   That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".
 
2013-04-06 02:59:20 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: He only needs to be a little tougher and luckier than you and when you're dead it really doesn't matter to you if he gets away with it.

The question is whether a SC is more inhibited than a cop. Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.


Agreed.  I have a slightly stronger trust that the SC will be inhibited because he knows he can't just claim "I thought I saw a gun" or "he was making furtive movements" and get away with it.

Hopefully I never get to find out if I'm wrong.
 
2013-04-06 02:59:21 PM  

pedrop357: Corn_Fed: dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.


Meh. Two peas in a pod. You're both dangerous to a well-functioning, free society.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:11 PM  

Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.

Meh. Two peas in a pod. You're both dangerous to a well-functioning, free society.


If this the litmus test for how you define "well-functioning, free society ", then you'll understand if I don't support it.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:26 PM  

pedrop357: Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over

Agreed.  fark these people.

If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things.  Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society.  Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types.   That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".


What evidence do you have to support your claim that the police are confusing civil rights advocates with the sovereign citizen nuts?
 
2013-04-06 03:02:35 PM  

lostcat: BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.

The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.


Yeah, that solves the warrant problem, except in the relatively rare case of an erroneous warrant (mistaken ID, ID theft, etc.).  Doesn't solve the second problem of being labeled a "usual suspect" to be rounded up every time a crime occurs.

Do these things occur often enough, and is their impact on individuals significant enough, to outweigh society's interest in having cops investigate crimes effectively?  The courts have generally ruled "no."

The subjects of such rights-infringements view it as, "My rights were infringed 100%, not 0.000001%."
 
2013-04-06 03:02:44 PM  

pedrop357: Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over

Agreed.  fark these people.

If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things.  Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society.  Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types.   That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".


Okay, that I can agree with. My problem with the sovereign citizens soley has to do with their fake paperwork, fake "joinder" crap, no licence plates, etc.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:56 PM  
I know one of these guys... I've watched him go deeper and deeper into his rabbit hole over the years. It's sad. He's got his "Sovereign" plates and he's not paid taxes in years - of course, he's also not actually done any meaningful work for over a decade.

Last time he got hired fora an  actual job, he ended up being let go during his meeting with HR - he refused to sign I-9 or fill out W4 and started going off on his sovereign citizen stuff. They essentially told him not to let the door hit him in the butt on the way out (security escorted him  out).

The thing is that he's effectively a homeless guy with a (unregistered and uninsured) car ... sooner or later, I expect him to get thrown in jail for a relatively minor offense which he will escalate into major felony charges and/or contempt of court. He thinks the cops are "in on the conspiracy" and know not to mess with him... when in reality, he's just flown under the radar... for now.

/facepalm  quite sad - he used to be quite a productive person - not at all unintelligent either - I honestly believe this sovereign stuff in his case is pretty much a mental illness. It's an OCD thing and paranoid delusion... folks who tend toward that are starting to connect more and  more due to the Interwebz, and they feel common ground with others who think in similar ways.

Basically, these are also the 9/11 truthers, the Newtown Truthers, the anti tax folks, the tea part, the home schoolers, the anti-vaxers, all these "anything is ok so long as  it's counter to 'the official story'"
 
2013-04-06 03:03:54 PM  
I'm not sure what training is necessary. If someone is breaking laws and pretending the laws don't apply to them, then arrest and charge them. Let the prosecutors, the judge and jury decide why they're being belligerent dicks, not the police.
 
2013-04-06 03:06:24 PM  
Straight jackets and electroshock therapy. These people are insane.
 
2013-04-06 03:07:51 PM  
Simpsons did it.

No. Seriously. They have a reference for regicide.


Bart: [watching Flanders] An ax. He's got an ax! I'll save you, Lisa! [tries to walk on his leg, falls back] Uh, I'll save you by calling the police. [dials 911] Voice: Hello, and welcome to the Springfield Police Department Resc-u- Fone[tm]. If you know the name of the felony being committed, press one. To choose from a list of felonies, press two. If you are being murdered or calling from a rotary phone, please stay on the line. Bart: [growls, punches some numbers] Voice: You have selected regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press one.-- Shockingly ineffective answering services, "Bart of Darkness"
 
2013-04-06 03:08:41 PM  
Okay, so if I understand it right, these nutjobs renounce their US citizenship and deny the US government has any authority over them. Fair enough. The only question is where we can deport them. Can we deport people to the moon yet?
 
2013-04-06 03:10:12 PM  

drxym: I'm not sure what training is necessary. If someone is breaking laws and pretending the laws don't apply to them, then arrest and charge them. Let the prosecutors, the judge and jury decide why they're being belligerent dicks, not the police.


This training program is a counterpoint to all the "sensitivity" and "community relations" training that cops receive every time some citizen gets butthurt.
 
2013-04-06 03:10:42 PM  

pedrop357: SuperSeriousMan: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.

But you're not a control freak, right?

I always love this counter response that basically says that the government owns all of us because we used or once used some service that was provided or regulated by the government.

Non contaminated food exists on numerous farms and slaughterhouses without a single government official doing anything.  It's surprisingly easy for families that eat what they raise/grow to just follow basic sanitary practices even without the watchful eye of the government.

They paid for most of that stuff whether they wanted too or not.  If they put fuel in their vehicles and purchased tires, they've paid for access to the roads and bridges for example.


It always amazes me when idiots like this try to act like the system is the root of these problems not the individuals engaging in criminal and often times monumentally bizarre activities. If thats the case why don't more people do it? Oh I forgot because we're all "sheeple" an insult I would like to add, invented as part of a marketing scheme devised by an international car company. If it were up to me the worthless shiatheel sovereigns could just head for Oregon to die of dysentery butchering oxen as needed. But unfortunately for those of us who play by the rules our public hospital system doesn't have the luxury of telling them to go die in the wilderness. These people are like a really really biatchy woman married to a really nice guy or vice versa. They do whatever they feel like, screw around, beat em up, say things that are unforgivable and every other type of offense or indignity they can perpetrate against their spouse because they know Mr. Nice Guy/Girl would never dream of saying shiat. They are spoiled pathetic children who have been convinced by equally moronic people like RON PAUL! that the rules can be whatever they say they are if they just stick their head far enough up their own ass.
 
2013-04-06 03:10:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: After what they did in West memphis in 2010, I say shoot first, Ask questions later.

/ knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.


Occasionally I support taser-happy cops, and dealing with those loonies is such a situation
 
2013-04-06 03:10:50 PM  
rebelyell2006: pedrop357: If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things. Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society. Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types. That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the police are confusing civil rights advocates with the sovereign citizen nuts?


Re-read the bolded part for the answer.

The police seem to be, at best, dismissive of people who exercise their rights.  At worst, they're openly hostile and abusive. Now we have more people whipping up hysteria about 3rd and 4th rate groups that also like much more vociferously exercise their rights and of which a very few have been involved in violence against cops.

One takeaway from this is that the police who already seem to think their safety is the most important thing around and any slight thing that might be construed as a threat is worthy of overwhelming force will now be even more likely to use force against people who exercise their rights under the misguided impression that the person in question is one of those 'sovereign whatevers that kills cops'
 
2013-04-06 03:11:15 PM  
Here's a reality check, kids: Whoever has the clear power advantage in any given situation is THE AUTHORITY.

It doesn't matter whether it is parent vs toddler, teacher vs  student, employee vs  boss, citizen vs  cop, or victim vs  mugger. The party with the most power RULES.

Of course you can always challenge the cop with a gun in your face, the mugger with a knife in your ribs, or the bureaucrat with a paper in its hand, but in each case, you risk potentially dire consequences in so doing - so the natural instinct toward of self-preservation and continued breathing would suggest that cooperation is usually advised.

At this moment, the body with the greatest POWER in the US is (obviously) the Federal Government, followed by State and local governments - which are (generally) backed by the former. They have the AUTHORITAY and the raw power to enforce it. They DON'T appreciate resistance, and you would do well to cooperate.

Of course it is the nature of those who "have" to want MORE - be it money or power, or what have you - and you may have noticed that the Supreme Power is by no means satisfied with the power advantage they have, but continually works to grab and consolidate MORE power - which means removing "power" (rights and liberties) from the "lesser entities" (states, locals, and common rabble). They are ESPECIALLY interested in removing from the latter any means, method or ability that might present a CHALLENGE to their power - their AUTHORITAY.

Which may be why they call *anyone* who doesn't recognize and bow before their authority "terrorists".

Are you a terrorist?

I know I'm not. I give due respect to anyone who can put the gun in my face, or the knife in my ribs.

Common sense, don't you think?
 
2013-04-06 03:14:37 PM  

Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists?  A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda.  While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning in the last few years.  News agencies should really refrain from using it.  It is now commonly applied to any sort of criminal, rather than according to its actual meaning.


They crossed the line of "harmless crazies" when they began blowing away cops. Oh I forgot these were probably just "isolated incidents." Wow I find myself putting so many thing in quotes these days I wonder if I'm becoming cynical.
 
2013-04-06 03:15:28 PM  

Fano: Treat them like Emperor Norton.


Norton was a nut, but he didn't shoot anyone.
 
2013-04-06 03:16:54 PM  

pedrop357: rebelyell2006: pedrop357: If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things. Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society. Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types. That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the police are confusing civil rights advocates with the sovereign citizen nuts?

Re-read the bolded part for the answer.

The police seem to be, at best, dismissive of people who exercise their rights.  At worst, they're openly hostile and abusive. Now we have more people whipping up hysteria about 3rd and 4th rate groups that also like much more vociferously exercise their rights and of which a very few have been involved in violence against cops.

One takeaway from this is that the police who already seem to think their safety is the most important thing around and any slight thing that might be construed as a threat is worthy of overwhelming force will now be even more likely to use force against people who exercise their rights under the misguided impression that the person in question is one of those 'sovereign whatevers that kills cops'


How satisfying is it to see a douche get tasered?  Really satisfying.  Probably not a constructive attitude in the long run, but you can't deny it feels right.
 
2013-04-06 03:18:48 PM  

ScaryBottles: These people are like a really really biatchy woman married to a really nice guy or vice versa. They do whatever they feel like, screw around, beat em up, say things that are unforgivable and every other type of offense or indignity they can perpetrate against their spouse because they know Mr. Nice Guy/Girl would never dream of saying shiat. They are spoiled pathetic children who have been convinced by equally moronic people like RON PAUL! that the rules can be whatever they say they are if they just stick their head far enough up their own ass.


trilobite.orgView Full Size
 
2013-04-06 03:24:43 PM  

drxym: I'm not sure what training is necessary. If someone is breaking laws and pretending the laws don't apply to them, then arrest and charge them. Let the prosecutors, the judge and jury decide why they're being belligerent dicks, not the police.


Maybe the training is geared towards dealing with these lunatics without just beating the everloving shiat out of them for being such aggravating cocksuckers.
 
2013-04-06 03:37:51 PM  

pedrop357: Most people here were talking about government use of roads, bullshiat "contracts", the idea that people using the internet owe allegiance to the government, and talk living off the grid, so I'm responding in kind.


Fair enough.

Although when people bring that stuff up the impression I get is "Those farking hypocrites, have they no shame or self-awareness?" rather than "you used a road/the internet, therefore you have to do whatever the government says."

The sovereign citizen types you described would be 5th and 6th rate nobodies if the lefty authoritarians would cool their jets

What does that mean?

What do you mean by "5th and 6th rate nobodies" because as long as they're doing what they're currently doing they're somebody.

Can you name these "lefty authoritarians" and tell us what do they need to do to "cool their jets" and turn the Sovereign Citizens into "nobodies"?
 
2013-04-06 03:39:10 PM  

rebelyell2006: pedrop357: The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does. Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?

It's not that they do not want to participate in society, it is that they reject social standards for cooperation and seek to play life by their own arbitrary rules while remaining in society.


Sort of this. The problem isn't that they want to be left alone. There are plenty of people who want to be left alone, and manage it just fine while still fulfilling the bare minimum of social and legal requirements. I know a software engineer who lives in a cabin on something like 5 wooded mountainous acres in upstate ny. He works remotely, grows his own food, has solar power and a water wheel in a little river to make power, and basically sees people in person for maybe a total of one week a year.

He also still pays his taxes, has a real licences, has valid plates, etc. He lives apart from society, is left alone, but is still compliant with all laws that apply to him by virtue of living within the borders of the US and making use of the full rights and privileges that cone along with that.

Sovereigns, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge that they are bound by any laws. Which would be mostly ok, if they kept completely to themselves in walled compounds, but they don't. They drive on public roads, go into town, often actually LIVE in largish population centers, and do so while flaunting their disregard for our society or our rules. They put themselves into situations where confrontations will occur, and then react violently when confronted. They aren't trying to be left alone, they're paranoid attention whores who WANT to make a statement.

I say once these people are apprehended, the cops escort them to the nearest border and drop them off on the other side.
 
2013-04-06 03:39:39 PM  

DrPainMD: cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

Why not leave them alone anyways? If you buy gas, you're paying for roads. Ditto for hundreds of other things. Even if a person pays no income tax, he's paying taxes. Probably in excess of the services received.


So if Jorge hops the border, pays some guy in Texas for twenty acres with melted down gold jewelry and starts a small goat farm without power/sewer/phone----that's all cool? Jorge never goes to town, as he makes his own clothes out of the goatskins. Never goes to the doctor, as he is eating a healthy diet of goat cheese and veggies he grows on his property.

He's just a man, doing his own thing. Do we leave him be?
 
2013-04-06 03:40:54 PM  

1000Monkeys: What does that mean?

What do you mean by "5th and 6th rate nobodies" because as long as they're doing what they're currently doing they're somebody.

Can you name these "lefty authoritarians" and tell us what do they need to do to "cool their jets" and turn the Sovereign Citizens into "nobodies"?


I think it's the screeching about how these guys have the audacity to reject government and all the nonsense that comes up about how they use roads and/or the internet.

The people around here who whine about police profiling of non-white people, about patriot act abuses, etc. seem to be OK with overblowing the threat from a group that is almost entirely low grade whackos who dick around with the court.
 
2013-04-06 03:42:30 PM  

Amos Quito: Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com image 668x401]



Here's another:

[www.history.com image 605x412]

What a "Paper Terrorist's"  "Terror Paper" might look like.


Do you think King George saw this as anything OTHER than "terrorism" - a challenge to HIS "authoritay"?


Great, so you're calling George Washington and the rest of the founders terrorists.

I'll remember that.
 
2013-04-06 03:43:42 PM  

Kittypie070: Amos Quito: Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com i