Pro-Second Amendment = Anti-Government Extremist
When Reuters reported the FBI’s warning about “anti-government extremists” and cited two cases where alleged “sovereign citizens” shot police, I figured it was just standard anti-gun media. But the emerging use of “anti-rights” instead of “anti-gun” is far more accurate.
The FBI has been publishing bulletins about the “sovereign citizen movement.” One indicator that you might be a “sovereign citizen” is:
“References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments.”
Thus, referring to the Bill of Rights, DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, or the pending U.N. arms trade treaty may place you on the federal government’s radar.
This is curious, because all elected officials and law enforcement are required to take oaths upholding the U.S. Constitution. Here’s the FBI’s oath:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Federal bureaucrats used to support the Constitution, along with another of the Founders’ very important documents, the Declaration of Independence, which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
One of Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions of “sovereign” is: “Pertaining to or characteristic of supremacy…” Taken in the Declaration’s context, each of us is a sovereign citizen, supreme in ourselves. Or as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
In this case, the government is required, via the “just powers” derived from our consent, to secure our sovereignty.
Their issue with the Second Amendment is that, by nature, it implies that citizens are sovereign, possessing a God-given, inalienable right of self-defense. It also acknowledges that the government isn’t obligated to protect us, a reality regularly affirmed by the Supreme Court (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, DeShaney v. Winnebago).
The Founders warned repeatedly of gun control’s threat to citizen sovereignty, which is why they included in the Declaration:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
On the other hand, OED also defines “sovereignty” as: “A person who has supremacy or authority over another or others…”
When government becomes corrupted, it seeks dominion over, not service to, the citizenry. It sees our sovereignty as a threat to its desire for supremacy and authority–mastery–over us.
One way to condition citizens into becoming comfortable as servants is to subtly manipulate the language until what was once the ideal goal of society–securing individual rights acknowledged in the Constitution–becomes an evil to be castigated and eradicated by any means possible. Thus, the servants become the masters, and their use of force against the citizenry becomes desirable and legal.
Which is why government will always want more gun control.
(See Bryan Preston’s take here.)
I have a feeling there are any number of lawyers out there who are waiting for someone to rattle Homeland Security’s cage and get arrested for being a “possible violent extremist.” This is something even the ACLU could get behind. However, it needs to be publicized far and wide. Your article is good for a start. Wonder if the MSM will pick up the story before things get out of hand.
Innocent citizens have enough to fear from this nonsense, but how might it affect *real* extremists? How long before the extra government scrutiny causes some paranoid to do something stupid? How long before DHS acts on its own rhetoric and we have another Ruby Ridge on our hands? It’s like they WANT to return to the status quo from 1993. Anything, I suppose, to distract us from foreign threats.
P.S. – If I were a cynic, I’d say Obama wants to see some white, Christian extremists being arrested to balance out all the Middle Eastern, Muslim extremists the FBI keeps catching. Wouldn’t want the Muslims to feel picked on.
Naw. Notice that they’ve focused on a group that, by their own admission, has fewer than 18 *crimes* connected to them last year. In comparison, there’s a political movement that’s tied to hundreds of crimes — including violence, that threatens more and escalating violence, and does it all openly.
How many “sovereign citizens” groups have stormed a city hall and vandalized it? How many “sovereign citizens” groups have taken over private property and claimed it for their possession? How many “sovereign citizens” groups have desecrated churches and looted their religious items?
How many “sovereign citizens” supporters have been ordered by courts to stay away from protests because of their history of violence? How many “sovereign citizens” supporters have shown up to their rallies with pipe bombs, shivs, needles, or paint bombs?
How many “sovereign citizens” groups have disrupted prayer vigils while sporting Nazi-esque armbands?
Why isn’t there a special FBI warning about the Occupy Wall Street thugs? They’ve done all I’ve listed, all within the last six months.
One commenter tried to pooh pooh Bryan on this issue.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/comment/293294/
I asked him where was the FBI’s discussion of the Occupy Movement.
Both FBI and commenter strangely silent.
Good one Howard.
“which is why government will always want more gun control”.
don’t know that ALL our past governments wanted more gun control. as a matter of fact, i don’t believe gun control was much of a big deal (knowing our country’s gun slinging past) until of late, historically speaking. guns were necessary for day to day life in most of the country for a long time. then during WW II the japanese didn’t try to invade the mainland for fear of ‘a gun behind every bush’, which wasn’t much of an exageration. maybe only since crooks started trying to take over our lives and our wealth has it become such a big issue. btw – our forefathers showed great love and wisdom to give us all the warnings about losing free speech and guns, and loosing rights.
notice how this present bunch are too busy to pass a budget, but got all kinda time to try to slam through laws to curb our freedoma, and give the present ‘powers’ even more.
A trend I’ve noticed is trial balloons being floated, then brought down by the Administration; gun control, bullets only non-lead,reporting more than one rifle,no guns in national parks then backing down, etc. I strongly suspect they are conditioning the sheeple to the idea that the “norm” is gun-free IF AND ONLY IF the feds are making the call. Not the Constitution, despite Heller and McDonald; not the States, as the 10th amendment is routinely ignored and largely unknown (by design, methinks). No, the only one true arbiter is the White House. I’m called nuts, but wouldn’t be surprised if BHO voids the election process by declaring another “crisis”, and declares himself Emperor, or a similar title with the same power. He has the ducks in a row; why chance it on the unwashed masses? Heck, no budget for over 1010 days, DOJ ignores Congress, but as long as Desperate Housewives and the games go on, most people wouldn’t flinch.
Their oath is just words to and promises to be broken just as soon as they feel safe in their jobs.
Howard:
Do you think the push for new regulations on sales of multiple rifles or “long guns” is directed at ferreting out “sovereign citizen” groups/”right wing extremist” militias etc.? I’ve wondered if the Feds are trying to set up a legal pretext for surveillance or searches or other incursions on individuals & groups who are otherwise beyond their reach.
If you mean a move towards full registration, Yes.
“The FBI has been publishing bulletins about the “sovereign citizen movement.” One indicator that you might be a “sovereign citizen” is:”
Why did you leave out the footnote?
■References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments8
8 The authors wish to stress that the majority of individuals who carry or refer to these resources are law-abiding citizens. However, in some instances, possession of these items may serve as one indicator of a sovereign-citizen extremist.
“One of Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions of “sovereign” is: “Pertaining to or characteristic of supremacy…” Taken in the Declaration’s context, each of us is a sovereign citizen, supreme in ourselves.”
Unfortunately that is not what the “sovereign citizen movement” is about.
They claim full sovereignty, and immunity, from all laws, taxes, regulations, and any other aspect of government jurisdiction.
And they are willing to engage in everything from common fraud to killing police officers as part of expressing their “sovereignty”.
“Sovereignty” sounds like a great word to defend, but these people are far from being law abiding citizens merely insisting on their Constitutional rights and a limited government.
I believe in God, Guns and Guts! If you don’t like that, you can stick it!
We WILL lose our Rights and our property because, as Charlotte Iserbyt has so clearly elucidated in her outstanding book titled, The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America, our education system, the media and the congress, they do not deserve capital letters, are in complete control of the powers-that-are therefore we are the masses-r-asses and do not deserve either Rights or liberty. As Benjamin Franklin is purported to have said, and I paraphrase, “Those who are willing to surrender any form of liberty for a promised form of security, deserve neither!”
When you realize, and I hope that you do, that an imposter was primed and deliberately pushed into the white house, it is completely clear that we are not in control of OUR government!