Bobby. wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:53pm:


It's a bit silly insane to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen.

Full stop.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 3:54pm:


I want to see an uncensored video of the circumstance. If the alleged perp was holding a firearm of some sort, he was likely justified in getting shot.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:54pm:


Comprehension diffulties (or low IQ)?

I said sovereignty is exercized by government, not indivduals.

You are making the classic fallacy of composition, confusing the 'sovereingty' of each individual in a nation, with  all the individuals in a nation who are represented by the sovereign government.

Please rewrite your garbled nonsense, highlighted above.

Quote:


Correct.

Quote:


Once again I have shown above (ie fallacy of composition) why you write such garbled nonsense. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

tgd: '1. Citizens  (not sovereign)  are subject to laws issued by the sovereign government,  including laws re free speech'.

You say citizens are sovereign via the government constitution and so are not sovereign by the government.

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 4:03pm:


No I don't; what we can see is useful idiots like you reveal the idiocy (and illegality) of the sovereign citizen  delusion.  (Note the singular, which drives home the point as already noted, but which went straight over your head).

But not over head of this Tasmanian independent MP who was invited to a 'sovereign citizens' meeting:

(microsoft news)

Tasmanian MP Craig Garland speaks at 'sovereign citizens' event, but says he's 'not a subscriber to any alternative reality'

Tasmanian independent MP Craig Garland spoke at an event on the weekend that featured multiple 'sovereign citizens' — one of whom plans to create a parallel society — but says he had "no idea" who most of them were.

Mr Garland said he will accept speaking invitations "anywhere, anytime", and that the event was attended by many of his supporters.

The event, in the north-west Tasmanian town of Ulverstone, was called 'Unity in Community', similar to the main slogan of the group 'My Place Australia', which is "putting the unity back in community", and aims to set up a "self-governing" association outside of Australian law.

But event organiser Shayne 'Cush' Allison said he came up with the event name himself, and it was "just a coincidence" that it was shared with My Place.
My Place's facilitator, Darren Bergwerf, attended and spoke at the weekend event.

Other speakers included a man who failed to have his Devonport council rates dismissed in court on constitutional grounds, and a speaker who argues the Australian Constitution is invalid and citizens have given "no implied consent".

Sovereign citizens believe Australian laws and institutions are not valid, and subscribe to the conspiracy that a global "cabal" is plotting to remove ordinary citizen's freedoms, but Mr Allison disputed the term "sovereign citizens".

The rhetoric of sovereign citizens has been routinely rejected by Australian courts and described by judges as "gibberish", "incomprehensible" and vexatious, and cases have resulted in financial penalties and potential loss of assets.

Mr Garland said he attended the event on Saturday afternoon, briefly listened to a speech, then gave his own talk on his "political journey" to about 100 attendees.

"I can't comment on who the other speakers were, I just looked around the room and there were quite a few people there who voted for me," he said.

"There were a lot of familiar faces, and there wasn't any radical element there that I could see that much.

"I'll attend anywhere, anytime I'm asked to talk."

Mr Garland said that 'sovereign citizen' concepts weren't raised with him, but there were discussions about "food security".

He said he did not share sovereign citizen views.

"I'm not a subscriber to any alternative reality," Mr Garland said.

When asked if his attendance could give the other speakers an increased audience, and help to legitimise their views, Mr Garland said "we live in a democracy with freedom of speech"**.

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

**Yes, even  blind neanderthal fools  like chimera who reject the possibility of an international rules based system are free to spout "gibberish" - as noted by judges in Australian courts who routinely come face to face with these 'sovereign citizen' fools.



 

Mr Garland's case is interesting:

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

iow, he wants nature to be left as is, with no fish farms or wind farms which might impede his fishing catch.

But he is intelligent enough not to take the delusional 'sovereign  citizen' route, trying to fight in the courts, and is now enjoying a highly paid job as an MP.

The conflict betweeen private (solo)  and commercial fishing  will need to be sorted in the relevant courts.

And the conflict over wind farm placement will need to be sorted by government ( plus courts if necessary in individual cases).

I understand electricity can be transmitted by high voltage DC lines over thousands of kms  with low energy losses,  and then reconverted to AC closer to the point of consumption.

If that's the case, Oz should build all the PV and wind farms it needs, in its vast central deserts, and lay the transmission cables underground. We have the equipment and know how to do it, and the currency-issuing government's Treasury ( the Oz treasury)  can fund it without the government resorting to taxes and/or borrowing to pay for it. 

Not at all - in our form of democracy, as opposed to some 'democracies' - our people are sovereign and possess the right to disempower government when it is wrong.

However, to be a 'sovereign citizen' in the context that these people do, one is saying that he/she is refusing to abide by the rules commonly accepted by the whole - while still demanding the right to accept all the benefits of the society in which that person(s) swims (swim) like a fish.

This, of course - has a direct link with those currently doing the rounds who are claiming 'sovereignty' to some past empire while still expecting to receive full benefits of this nation... it follows directly from such a stance that those individuals are not citizens of this state and thus cannot take advantage of the benefits of being citizens of this state, such as voting, sustenance, or even residence.

With privileges come responsibilities - that is the nub of the matter.

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.'
'The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.'

What has the guns got to do with their claim?