Anyone thought of becoming a sovereign citizen?

[BugI02]

Pfft, not me. I'm a Moorish Diplomat.

Othello, is that you?

 

[NKBJ]

It's not that I don't mind paying taxes that go to improve my city of residence, but im tired of paying 50% of my gross pay to go towards bulls**t! We're getting screwed on so many different levels its not funny. Locally, statewide, & federally. For example, I live in Hobart and they want to put a roundabout in at a 3 way intersection that u never have to wait more than 30 seconds at a cost of 10 million dollars! WTF! Not to mention a new 1 1/2 % tax. The politicians then gave themselves a 3% raise. I can't get a raise but they're covered the increase plus some. Guess this is more ofva rant than anything. Just need to vent I guess about how much were taking it up the a**

There have been some fascinating books over the years that dig pretty deeply into the legalsleaze on the sovereign theories. Looks to me as though from before the times my father was growing hair and chasing pretty womens we have been chattel, collateral, cows butchered when milk production diminishes. And, that it is so scary to lift the covers on the fictions we live within that there is absolutely zero danger of Americans ever educating themselves and becoming free again. It's just nothing more than a matter of preserving their comfort zones and b(les)sing themselves with a lack of knowledge.

 

[jamil]

I think it’s as simple as this. Some people are more delusional than others.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Isn't "sovereign citizen" self-contradictory? Being a citizen indicates you are a full member of a given society. Individual sovereignty disowns membership in society. How is this supposed to work?

 

[jamil]

Is it true that it’s actually a society? Do they have memberships? I really don’t know much about them other than what I get from the entertaining “cops ‘own’ sovereign citizen” videos.

 

[Mongo59]

Anarchist of America unite!

 

[NKBJ]

Isn't "sovereign citizen" self-contradictory? Being a citizen indicates you are a full member of a given society. Individual sovereignty disowns membership in society. How is this supposed to work?

Maybe it literally isn't supposed to work. Look at the flat earth op. People willingly bought in and never figured out who or why. Something that I learned long ago is that everybody is crazy on some subject and that makes them vulnerable fools for the tool. That's how ops are pulled.

 

[Sylvain]

By the way the FBI rates sovereign citizens extremists as domestic terrorists, and as higher threat than Islamic terrorism.

They have killed police officers in the past.

 

[IndyDave1776]

By the way the FBI rates sovereign citizens extremists as domestic terrorists, and as higher threat than Islamic terrorism.

They have killed police officers in the past.

You have to consider the politics that go into such a decision. The Sovereigns aren't even in the same ZIP code with the Islamic terrorists for body count of Americans killed or material damage done. The difference is thst a sovereign would walk right past either of us with the most aggressive move he might make being to say "good morning" rather than ignoring us. Agents of government, by contrast, are the enemy as he defines them. Since agents of government make the list, naturally, people targeting them are going to be deemed worse.

 

[Sylvain]

You have to consider the politics that go into such a decision. The Sovereigns aren't even in the same ZIP code with the Islamic terrorists for body count of Americans killed or material damage done. The difference is thst a sovereign would walk right past either of us with the most aggressive move he might make being to say "good morning" rather than ignoring us. Agents of government, by contrast, are the enemy as he defines them. Since agents of government make the list, naturally, people targeting them are going to be deemed worse.

The people behind the Oklahoma City bombing are considered to be sovereign citizens.

When they use bombs they target everybody, not just people working for the state.

Perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing happened at 9:02 am and killed at least 168 people,[SUP][2][/SUP] injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.[SUP][3][/SUP] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars,[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage.

Clearly not everybody was a cop in a 16-block radius.

The threat is still present, police recently arrested a sovereign citizen who planned to kill police officers with a bomb.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/07/sovereign-citizen-threatens-police-pig-shaped-bomb

And by the way I don't think we can consider that "they target them", just because we are not cops and don't wear a badge.

There's no them vs us.

If you target police officers (also elected officials, members of the military and many others who work for the state) you are directly targeting everybody.You are targeting me.

After the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, where police officers were assassinated, people stood in the street with signs saying "I'm a cop".

 

[IndyDave1776]

The people behind the Oklahoma City bombing are considered to be sovereign citizens.

When they use bombs they target everybody, not just people working for the state.



Clearly not everybody was a cop in a 16-block radius.

The threat is still present, police recently arrested a sovereign citizen who planned to kill police officers with a bomb.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/07/sovereign-citizen-threatens-police-pig-shaped-bomb

And by the way I don't think we can consider that "they target them", just because we are not cops and don't wear a badge.

There's no them vs us.

If you target police officers (also elected officials, members of the military and many others who work for the state) you are directly targeting everybody.You are targeting me.

After the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, where police officers were assassinated, people stood in the street with signs saying "I'm a cop".

The militia movement of the 90s was really a different phenomenon from sovereign citizens. Lumping McVeigh & Co. into sovereign citizens is like counting suicides and hunting accidents into the gun homicide statistics.

The sovereign citizen would disagree absolutely with what you said. So far as I understand, they generally want the state to go away. As a result you and I don't interfere with their agenda. By contrast, to a terrorist the fact that we exist is contrary to the agenda. I am not suggesting that we should consider ourselves neutral on the issue, just pointing out that one of the significant differences is that the sovereigns are basically indifferent about the rest of us as opposed to an agenda that in its fully developed form amounts to genocide against the western culture.

 

[Sylvain]

The militia movement of the 90s was really a different phenomenon from sovereign citizens. Lumping McVeigh & Co. into sovereign citizens is like counting suicides and hunting accidents into the gun homicide statistics.

The sovereign citizen would disagree absolutely with what you said. So far as I understand, they generally want the state to go away. As a result you and I don't interfere with their agenda. By contrast, to a terrorist the fact that we exist is contrary to the agenda. I am not suggesting that we should consider ourselves neutral on the issue, just pointing out that one of the significant differences is that the sovereigns are basically indifferent about the rest of us as opposed to an agenda that in its fully developed form amounts to genocide against the western culture.

Terry Nichols considers himself to be a sovereign citizen from what I've read.

And to an extremist sovereign citizen you could be considered part of the problem if you support the government by paying taxes.

When terrorists use bombs you are among the potential victims.Bombs don't discriminate.

When sovereign citizens use bombs they kill government employees and regular citizens alike.

Same way bombs used by Islamic terrorists kill mostly Muslims.

Bombers don't care about collateral damage no matter their ideology.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Terry Nichols considers himself to be a sovereign citizen from what I've read.

And to an extremist sovereign citizen you could be considered part of the problem if you support the government by paying taxes.

When terrorists use bombs you are among the potential victims.Bombs don't discriminate.

When sovereign citizens use bombs they kill government employees and regular citizens alike.

Same way bombs used by Islamic terrorists kill mostly Muslims.

Bombers don't care about collateral damage no matter their ideology.

You can have people who identify as both, but Nichols was wearing his militia hat at the time. Beyond this I don't care to get into the irregularities of the OKC bombing, but I have absolutely no question in my mind that there are several irregularities. Consequently, it doesnt make a good example. By contrast, the WTC attack was a straightforward thing in all but the most imaginative of minds with a much higher casualty count.

While I have known only one sovereign citizen personally, the pure ideology seems to be that of dropping out of society more so than going on the offensive, although confrontations are well documented to have happened. It is still different from the militia movement which was engineered in most cases for direct armed conflict with the .gov.

The point I see that can cause difficulty here is conflating separate ideologies which may or may not manifest concurrently in the same person and declaring all to be equally terrorists much like the little boy in a novel I once read set shortly after World War II who found amusement in fighting imaginary "CommieJapInjuns" without regard to the fact that those were three entirely separate factions.

Beyond this, I have not forgotten the leaked .gov document which contained the .gov's definition of a domestic terrorist. Any one of being a veteran, beliebing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion, opposing illegal immigration, or believing in the second coming of Christ was adequate to tag a person as a terrorist.

That said, my final conclusion is that prioritizing sovereigns ahead of islamic terrorists on the threat scale is a bunch of horseshi t.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You can have people who identify as both, but Nichols was wearing his militia hat at the time. Beyond this I don't care to get into the irregularities of the OKC bombing, but I have absolutely no question in my mind that there are several irregularities. Consequently, it doesnt make a good example. By contrast, the WTC attack was a straightforward thing in all but the most imaginative of minds with a much higher casualty count.

While I have known only one sovereign citizen personally, the pure ideology seems to be that of dropping out of society more so than going on the offensive, although confrontations are well documented to have happened. It is still different from the militia movement which was engineered in most cases for direct armed conflict with the .gov.

The point I see that can cause difficulty here is conflating separate ideologies which may or may not manifest concurrently in the same person and declaring all to be equally terrorists much like the little boy in a novel I once read set shortly after World War II who found amusement in fighting imaginary "CommieJapInjuns" without regard to the fact that those were three entirely separate factions.

Beyond this, I have not forgotten the leaked .gov document which contained the .gov's definition of a domestic terrorist. Any one of being a veteran, beliebing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion, opposing illegal immigration, or believing in the second coming of Christ was adequate to tag a person as a terrorist.

That said, my final conclusion is that prioritizing sovereigns ahead of islamic terrorists on the threat scale is a bunch of horseshi t.

Was that from the .gov, or was that the Southern Poverty Law Center? They tend to play fast and loose with their definitions of well... almost anything.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You can have people who identify as both, but Nichols was wearing his militia hat at the time. Beyond this I don't care to get into the irregularities of the OKC bombing, but I have absolutely no question in my mind that there are several irregularities. Consequently, it doesnt make a good example. By contrast, the WTC attack was a straightforward thing in all but the most imaginative of minds with a much higher casualty count.

While I have known only one sovereign citizen personally, the pure ideology seems to be that of dropping out of society more so than going on the offensive, although confrontations are well documented to have happened. It is still different from the militia movement which was engineered in most cases for direct armed conflict with the .gov.

The point I see that can cause difficulty here is conflating separate ideologies which may or may not manifest concurrently in the same person and declaring all to be equally terrorists much like the little boy in a novel I once read set shortly after World War II who found amusement in fighting imaginary "CommieJapInjuns" without regard to the fact that those were three entirely separate factions.

Beyond this, I have not forgotten the leaked .gov document which contained the .gov's definition of a domestic terrorist. Any one of being a veteran, beliebing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion, opposing illegal immigration, or believing in the second coming of Christ was adequate to tag a person as a terrorist.

That said, my final conclusion is that prioritizing sovereigns ahead of islamic terrorists on the threat scale is a bunch of horseshi t.

Wait, so you're telling me Ivan Kyoshi Littlefeather wasn't real??

 

[2A_Tom]

If you are a sovereign citizen, Stay the ******* off the roads that I pay for and don't even let me see you in the library!

 

[Sylvain]

If you are a sovereign citizen, Stay the ******* off the roads that I pay for and don't even let me see you in the library!

67°F here.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Was that from the .gov, or was that the Southern Poverty Law Center? They tend to play fast and loose with their definitions of well... almost anything.

That was from a leaked DHS document. For the value of the contents, it might as well have been cooked up by the SPLC, but it wasn't.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you are a sovereign citizen, Stay the ******* off the roads that I pay for and don't even let me see you in the library!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 2A_Tom again.

 

[BugI02]

You can have people who identify as both, but Nichols was wearing his militia hat at the time. Beyond this I don't care to get into the irregularities of the OKC bombing, but I have absolutely no question in my mind that there are several irregularities. Consequently, it doesnt make a good example. By contrast, the WTC attack was a straightforward thing in all but the most imaginative of minds with a much higher casualty count.

While I have known only one sovereign citizen personally, the pure ideology seems to be that of dropping out of society more so than going on the offensive, although confrontations are well documented to have happened. It is still different from the militia movement which was engineered in most cases for direct armed conflict with the .gov.

The point I see that can cause difficulty here is conflating separate ideologies which may or may not manifest concurrently in the same person and declaring all to be equally terrorists much like the little boy in a novel I once read set shortly after World War II who found amusement in fighting imaginary "CommieJapInjuns" without regard to the fact that those were three entirely separate factions.

Beyond this, I have not forgotten the leaked .gov document which contained the .gov's definition of a domestic terrorist. Any one of being a veteran, beliebing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion, opposing illegal immigration, or believing in the second coming of Christ was adequate to tag a person as a terrorist.

That said, my final conclusion is that prioritizing sovereigns ahead of islamic terrorists on the threat scale is a bunch of horseshi t.

So you're saying Tim Leary was ahead of the curve?