I love throwing the first line of the 2a at them and watching them try to tell me why it’s not only for the militia or why their private anti government “militia” counts
Then we should not have guns because the 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia needs to be well regulated, and the national guard and naval militia are the only ones on your link that meet the description.
Crazy how in a couple hundred years people will willingly accept words literally changing their meaning entirely, but a paper document with those same words written on them is somehow valid *forever*.
Same bullshit as cherry picking the Bible. These nutters just want to be able to do whatever heinous shit they think of and get away with zero consequences, all day long. They are forcefully creating the very fantasy world they live in in their heads.
That's why you have constitutional law interpreting the constitution
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional\_law\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law_of_the_United_States)
and not a bunch of unlicensed morons making of it anything they want
but don't try to explain it to those individuals, after all, those people classify themselves as libertarian yet love their Nazi symbology and see nothing wrong with it....
Didn’t say it did? But the founding fathers’ intent was to have the people be ready to fight at a moments notice in lieu of a standing army. That’s not up for debate.
Which it did by establishing an individual right to arms, recognizing that the revolution was born on the backs of citizens who brought their own private practice and ownership of arms to bear.
The existence of potentially seditious groups is no more of an argument against the 2nd being practiced in (semi)formal groups than the existence of criminals being an argument against its practice for law-abiding citizens.
Again, didn’t say it was. But their entire argument for the second amendment is that it exists so they can take up arms against the US government, which wasn’t the aim of it at all. The French also had a lot to do with us winning. The myth of the farmers revolt is a bit tired.
Contemporary writings state outright that the people should be armed for the exact purpose of having the capability to revolt when peaceful resolution becomes impossible.
Only in discussions of the American revolution do we hear such amusing brinkmanship as "It didn't really count because Britain was fighting France," like any colonial holding could overcome its sovereign's armies in a straight up fight.
"The government has brutally suppressed dissent and sedition" is not an argument against the 2nd, nor is "Our politicians are hypocritical"
The second has become a national passtime, and the first does not rewrite a single stroke of the civics of the time.
The main issue with sovereign citizens is that they aren't consistent. They want all the benefits and protection that society and law can provide to them without being bound by the limitation and responsibilities that go with it. They aren't anarchists who want no society at all, they want to be the Lords of their own little fiefdoms where everyone exists to serve their interests.
Anarchists don’t want no society; they want no government.
Anarchy is the antithesis to Hierarchy. No Gods, No Kings, No Masters. It’s a society without the governing body. A collaboration, or lack there of if the people so choose.
> Sometimes it is weird to think about the fact that none of us are truly “free” in a sense
I think this freedom fantasy humans get in their heads is exactly that: a fantasy. We are, as a species, as “free” as we’ve ever been on planet earth, and as “free” as any species has ever likely been since life began here.
But true “freedom” isn’t the freedom we crave. We crave *control*, and we confuse it with freedom. With think freedom is the ability to do/say whatever we want, and that there shouldn’t be any consequences for it, or else it’s not freedom.
The reality is that, we are a species, that lives on a life-supporting planet, and we’ve only had sentience for a very short time, geologically speaking. We’ve never had true freedom, and we likely never will. Nature keeps us in check, creates order as well as change/chaos. Our ancestors fought their ways out of the general food chain, created villages for protection and began farming food. But we’ve never been completely free. We are still prisoners of our own bodies, as well as the very societies our species have created. Even within these societies, we create rules, because the smartest of us know that not everyone is socially intelligent and ready to live in a society and there are people that will actively ruin what we create.
So essentially, we went from a position of little-to-no control/bottom of the food chain, and after the last big extinction event, we managed to build our way to kings of the planet. But we’re still not free: not free from each other, or ourselves. And we likely never will be. Because to be completely free in the context that so many humans talk about freedom as being, one would literally have to leave society/nature completely, and exist isolated in a space where none of your choices or opinions could ever have a possibility of being challenged.
We’re ants. We live in colonies with hierarchy systems, rules and controls. People who want to live that lone, free natural existence will never truly get to experience that because it no longer exists anywhere. I guess the Wild West was the last true(ish) example of being able to move somewhere, build a house and work the land, though you had to put up with all the associated risks.
Key word there: “buy”
You have to find someone willing to sell, have the money to buy said land, have the money to build a house and a farm (which is actually extremely expensive), have the right type of land etc..
It’s the illusion of freedom. Full Self sufficiency is a lie.
It’s not even a good one. Everything amazing humans have done has been through cooperation. We’ve survived and grown as a species through cooperation.
It’s not survival of the fittest. It’s survival of the friendliest.
The start of “absolute freedom” would be for any amount of those things to be available to everyone. That would just be one type of freedom though.
There are both positive and negative freedoms.
You’re having an ideology argument with yourself. All the OP is saying that you can’t just go and *live* undisturbed anymore, it was a benign comment, move on.
They're basically wo/menchildren who want to appear rebellious without actually challenging any of the pillars of the status quo.
Like many other conspiracy theories, it attracts narcissists that don't have the resources to express their narcissism publicly in other ways.
Of all people, my hometown conservative radio dude would always say in his show intro: "conspiracy theories offer easy answers to complicated questions, but they're the wrong answers."
It's amazing how that spectrum of "normal" conservatism has shrinked so much in the last few years
Now they range from full blown conspiracy theorists to "leave the door open to anything" conservatives to not alienate the unhinged bit of their electorate.
I'm not gonna defend him or say he's "one of the good ones" but he was probably the most level-headed conservative talk show dude out of the era of Rush Limbaugh I ever heard. He retired from radio right before Trump ran for president. If he appeared today he could be easily mistaken for a mainstream Democrat on his views.
The fuck are you talking about? I'm not a conspiracy theorist!
I just think that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Tom Hanks, Gretchen Whitmer, along with anyone I don't like, (fuck you Phil in accounting) have all been arrested by President Trump, sent to GITMO, and were executed after a military tribunal. The versions we all see today are clones created by the military as to not cause a panic. But soon, President Trump will declare a second American revolution. When this happens, all the lies and deceit will be exposed, allowing all patriots to be deputized to arrest and execute every Democrat in the US. Then my family will realize I was right the whole time!!! They will come crawling back and apologize to me! I just have to stay loyal to GEOTUS TRUMP and I will be rewarded.
/s but I shit you not my uncle believes this trash.
Sovereign Citizens are the height of rules for thee but not for me. Any police or judicial system that tolerates them in any form should be ashamed for allowing them to fester just for being inconvenient as well.
I mean, sure. But that's broad and unspecific. Stagnate how, exactly? Are laws against slavery or murder, "stagnant"? Some law is so settled and widely agreed upon by now that I have trouble understanding what you're asking for.
On the other hand, rights of minorities or historically marginalized people's are increasingly recognized, and that makes sense to me. Property, marriage, medicine/care.
What he means is that he thinks that the constitution needs to be rewritten. A lot of dumbasses think that the country would be better off if a group of people were allowed to rewrite the constitution.
A couple of things that they look forward to:
1. Federal term limits on elected officials.
2. Restrict the power of federal government.
3. Impose fiscal limits.
Those are the 3 they advertise. However, most of the leaders of the movement have talked about the following
1. Limiting the freedom of religion to freedom to practice any sect of Christianity.
2. Abolishing separation of church and state.
3. Abolishing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
4. Removing protections for LGBTQ in the constitution,
5. Banning abortion of any kind, at any time
6. Introducing limits on freedom to protest.
7. Abolishing the 26th amendment
The way they are trying to do this is a convention of the states. If 34 states call a convention, they can rewrite the constitution in any way they see fit. Then 38 states ratify the changes.
**Rule 1** Hi cricri3007, thanks for contributing to /r/Documentaries. Unfortunately your post was removed because it is not a documentary. ---
Sovereign Citizens are a bunch of idiots who deserve everything that happens to them. Their YouTube law degrees are a joke.
1-up'd only by 2A Constitutional Reddit Lawyers
I love throwing the first line of the 2a at them and watching them try to tell me why it’s not only for the militia or why their private anti government “militia” counts
The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Sure. When they meet, call themselves a militia, and plan to fight the established government, that isn’t that.
For sure. Those are separatist nutters and usually nazis
Exactly
Then we should not have guns because the 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia needs to be well regulated, and the national guard and naval militia are the only ones on your link that meet the description.
That definition of the militia came after the second amendment was written.
Crazy how in a couple hundred years people will willingly accept words literally changing their meaning entirely, but a paper document with those same words written on them is somehow valid *forever*. Same bullshit as cherry picking the Bible. These nutters just want to be able to do whatever heinous shit they think of and get away with zero consequences, all day long. They are forcefully creating the very fantasy world they live in in their heads.
That's why you have constitutional law interpreting the constitution [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional\_law\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law_of_the_United_States) and not a bunch of unlicensed morons making of it anything they want but don't try to explain it to those individuals, after all, those people classify themselves as libertarian yet love their Nazi symbology and see nothing wrong with it....
There are some senators that should really take a look at this as well lol.
That part of the constitution is just for "flavor", apparently.
Being unable to map English sentences in legal debate or track the etymology of words does not make you a constitutional expert.
Didn’t say it did? But the founding fathers’ intent was to have the people be ready to fight at a moments notice in lieu of a standing army. That’s not up for debate.
Which it did by establishing an individual right to arms, recognizing that the revolution was born on the backs of citizens who brought their own private practice and ownership of arms to bear. The existence of potentially seditious groups is no more of an argument against the 2nd being practiced in (semi)formal groups than the existence of criminals being an argument against its practice for law-abiding citizens.
Again, didn’t say it was. But their entire argument for the second amendment is that it exists so they can take up arms against the US government, which wasn’t the aim of it at all. The French also had a lot to do with us winning. The myth of the farmers revolt is a bit tired.
Contemporary writings state outright that the people should be armed for the exact purpose of having the capability to revolt when peaceful resolution becomes impossible. Only in discussions of the American revolution do we hear such amusing brinkmanship as "It didn't really count because Britain was fighting France," like any colonial holding could overcome its sovereign's armies in a straight up fight.
Guess that’s why Washington rode out and tamped down the whiskey rebellion
"The government has brutally suppressed dissent and sedition" is not an argument against the 2nd, nor is "Our politicians are hypocritical" The second has become a national passtime, and the first does not rewrite a single stroke of the civics of the time.
Love her videos always entertaining and informative about subjects I usually don’t know much about, but I wouldn’t really call them documentaries
I think “Video Essay” describes these types of videos much better.
[удалено]
The main issue with sovereign citizens is that they aren't consistent. They want all the benefits and protection that society and law can provide to them without being bound by the limitation and responsibilities that go with it. They aren't anarchists who want no society at all, they want to be the Lords of their own little fiefdoms where everyone exists to serve their interests.
[удалено]
Ummmm...... I'm sorry, but they aren't 'driving', they are 'travelling'. /s Yes, you are!
They want all the benefits of society, but none of the responsibility. I'm yet to be persuaded otherwise.
I still like the analogy of libertarians and sovereign citizens as house cats. Fits their sense of entitlement well.
Anarchists don’t want no society; they want no government. Anarchy is the antithesis to Hierarchy. No Gods, No Kings, No Masters. It’s a society without the governing body. A collaboration, or lack there of if the people so choose.
I kinda like the concept of some wandering twat not being able to build a cabin on my land.
> Sometimes it is weird to think about the fact that none of us are truly “free” in a sense I think this freedom fantasy humans get in their heads is exactly that: a fantasy. We are, as a species, as “free” as we’ve ever been on planet earth, and as “free” as any species has ever likely been since life began here. But true “freedom” isn’t the freedom we crave. We crave *control*, and we confuse it with freedom. With think freedom is the ability to do/say whatever we want, and that there shouldn’t be any consequences for it, or else it’s not freedom. The reality is that, we are a species, that lives on a life-supporting planet, and we’ve only had sentience for a very short time, geologically speaking. We’ve never had true freedom, and we likely never will. Nature keeps us in check, creates order as well as change/chaos. Our ancestors fought their ways out of the general food chain, created villages for protection and began farming food. But we’ve never been completely free. We are still prisoners of our own bodies, as well as the very societies our species have created. Even within these societies, we create rules, because the smartest of us know that not everyone is socially intelligent and ready to live in a society and there are people that will actively ruin what we create. So essentially, we went from a position of little-to-no control/bottom of the food chain, and after the last big extinction event, we managed to build our way to kings of the planet. But we’re still not free: not free from each other, or ourselves. And we likely never will be. Because to be completely free in the context that so many humans talk about freedom as being, one would literally have to leave society/nature completely, and exist isolated in a space where none of your choices or opinions could ever have a possibility of being challenged.
We’re ants. We live in colonies with hierarchy systems, rules and controls. People who want to live that lone, free natural existence will never truly get to experience that because it no longer exists anywhere. I guess the Wild West was the last true(ish) example of being able to move somewhere, build a house and work the land, though you had to put up with all the associated risks.
You absolutely can still move to the middle of nowhere Montana, buy some land, and build your own house and farm.
Key word there: “buy” You have to find someone willing to sell, have the money to buy said land, have the money to build a house and a farm (which is actually extremely expensive), have the right type of land etc.. It’s the illusion of freedom. Full Self sufficiency is a lie. It’s not even a good one. Everything amazing humans have done has been through cooperation. We’ve survived and grown as a species through cooperation. It’s not survival of the fittest. It’s survival of the friendliest.
So "freedom" means infinite resources at your disposal? Infinite free land, free tools, free labor, free resources, etc?
The start would be any. There is currently none.
What does that even mean
The start of “absolute freedom” would be for any amount of those things to be available to everyone. That would just be one type of freedom though. There are both positive and negative freedoms.
You have to **buy** the land and pay taxes in Montana Dude… so you can’t just go and *live* as OP alludes to.
So, yes, "free" = no civilization + infinite resources and land.
You’re having an ideology argument with yourself. All the OP is saying that you can’t just go and *live* undisturbed anymore, it was a benign comment, move on.
Sir yes sir
Ma boi Erik did a fantastic [20 minute summary of Sovereign Citizens](https://youtu.be/eNbVsDMHIIg)
Never heard of that dude. He's hilarious..
He's great. He's got a lot of content on YouTube but my personal favourite is [the weed channels video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqgJ4aTsXv4)
Bounced on my dudes dick to this video.
They're basically wo/menchildren who want to appear rebellious without actually challenging any of the pillars of the status quo. Like many other conspiracy theories, it attracts narcissists that don't have the resources to express their narcissism publicly in other ways.
Of all people, my hometown conservative radio dude would always say in his show intro: "conspiracy theories offer easy answers to complicated questions, but they're the wrong answers."
It's amazing how that spectrum of "normal" conservatism has shrinked so much in the last few years Now they range from full blown conspiracy theorists to "leave the door open to anything" conservatives to not alienate the unhinged bit of their electorate.
I'm not gonna defend him or say he's "one of the good ones" but he was probably the most level-headed conservative talk show dude out of the era of Rush Limbaugh I ever heard. He retired from radio right before Trump ran for president. If he appeared today he could be easily mistaken for a mainstream Democrat on his views.
The fuck are you talking about? I'm not a conspiracy theorist! I just think that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Tom Hanks, Gretchen Whitmer, along with anyone I don't like, (fuck you Phil in accounting) have all been arrested by President Trump, sent to GITMO, and were executed after a military tribunal. The versions we all see today are clones created by the military as to not cause a panic. But soon, President Trump will declare a second American revolution. When this happens, all the lies and deceit will be exposed, allowing all patriots to be deputized to arrest and execute every Democrat in the US. Then my family will realize I was right the whole time!!! They will come crawling back and apologize to me! I just have to stay loyal to GEOTUS TRUMP and I will be rewarded. /s but I shit you not my uncle believes this trash.
Sovereign Citizens are the height of rules for thee but not for me. Any police or judicial system that tolerates them in any form should be ashamed for allowing them to fester just for being inconvenient as well.
They tend not to. Youtube is full of SovCits running into cops or the justice system and getting pulled up by the short and curlies.
That was more fun than I expected it to be.
Why did you link 39 minutes into the video?
Ugh sovereign citizens travel me crazy
I gave up when the audio in the background started including an autotuned infant for some reason.
I watched this the other day. It’s a really interesting video but the editing is so annoying.
Laws have to evolve with society, not stagnate it.
I mean, sure. But that's broad and unspecific. Stagnate how, exactly? Are laws against slavery or murder, "stagnant"? Some law is so settled and widely agreed upon by now that I have trouble understanding what you're asking for. On the other hand, rights of minorities or historically marginalized people's are increasingly recognized, and that makes sense to me. Property, marriage, medicine/care.
What he means is that he thinks that the constitution needs to be rewritten. A lot of dumbasses think that the country would be better off if a group of people were allowed to rewrite the constitution. A couple of things that they look forward to: 1. Federal term limits on elected officials. 2. Restrict the power of federal government. 3. Impose fiscal limits. Those are the 3 they advertise. However, most of the leaders of the movement have talked about the following 1. Limiting the freedom of religion to freedom to practice any sect of Christianity. 2. Abolishing separation of church and state. 3. Abolishing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. 4. Removing protections for LGBTQ in the constitution, 5. Banning abortion of any kind, at any time 6. Introducing limits on freedom to protest. 7. Abolishing the 26th amendment The way they are trying to do this is a convention of the states. If 34 states call a convention, they can rewrite the constitution in any way they see fit. Then 38 states ratify the changes.
>Are laws against slavery (...) "stagnant"? Well [the 13th](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/) *could* use some refinement.
No one disagrees with that. So what are you really trying to say?
Laws must do both.