Meadville-area militia leader admits having illegal guns

[EVIL5LITER]

As for his views on the UN, mine are similar.

Does it make me a loony because I believe that we need to get out of the UN?

 

[LAR-15]

"Among his many views, Sivik held that the United Nations was out to strip the United States of its sovereignty and take away Americans' rights."

This is absolutely true and I totally agree.

 

[c_yeager]

You might be right that you shouldn't compare the two groups, as the Founding Fathers revolted over something so shallow as money and these "loonies" fear for our national sovereignty and our personal rights. You can't really compare those two, can you?

The real big difference between the two is that the founding fathers revolted against a government that was both offshore and unelected by them. This is a domestic government that is in fact elected by popular vote of the people. By acting in this manner these loonies are not only revolting against the government but against the majority that elected them to office. Thats a pretty significant difference if you ask me.

The battle cry of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" well, like it or not we are represented. If we elect people who do a piss poor job of representing us that is a mistake that is our right to make. By taking up armed revolt of THIS nature against representatives that WE ELECTED these nutjobs are in fact attempting to deny us of OUR right to a duly elected representation. Thats a violation of MY rights and yours. And i hope they are strung up for the traitors that they are.

 

[hammer4nc]

A certain segment of our population is oh so willing to believe ANY claims that begin with..."agents said". C'mon, people, don't you recognize attempts at demonization when you see it? Examples in this case:

...a militia outfit that agents said was training members to kill police officers in preparation for the end of the world.

Agents said he was stockpiling weapons for the second coming of Jesus Christ, which he predicts will happen in 2009, and Armageddon, slated for 2012.

Agents said Sivik, who refers to himself as a "patriotic Christian American," ran another group called the Braveheart Militia, which was stockpiling weapons at a Forest County hunting camp for its own showdown with the government.

This suspect was only charged with a paper work violation; he could have been charged with several serious (real) crimes...the .gov made no attempt to do so. Yet, with the demonization factor, several in the gun owning community are ready to string him up, for his thoughts and words, predicated on "...agents said". Y'all have been manipulated, and you ought to be a little more critical when stories are 5% fact, and 95% propaganda. What has happened to critical thinking these days?

 

[JohnBT]

"Bilunka pleaded guilty in August to possession of unregistered firearms, land mines..."

Land mines?

I know, I know, he was just going to use them to celebrate the 4th.

John

 

[DMF]

The real big difference between the two is that the founding fathers revolted against a government that was both offshore and unelected by them. This is a domestic government that is in fact elected by popular vote of the people. By acting in this manner these loonies are not only revolting against the government but against the majority that elected them to office. Thats a pretty significant difference if you ask me.

The battle cry of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" well, like it or not we are represented. If we elect people who do a piss poor job of representing us that is a mistake that is our right to make. By taking up armed revolt of THIS nature against representatives that WE ELECTED these nutjobs are in fact attempting to deny us of OUR right to a duly elected representation. Thats a violation of MY rights and yours.

Well said.

 

[DMF]

"Bilunka pleaded guilty in August to possession of unregistered firearms, land mines..."

Land mines?

I know, I know, he was just going to use them to celebrate the 4th.

Really I assumed he was going to create an alternative Easter game. Rather than hunt for eggs the kiddies and adults can all search for mines. The danger element would make it much more exciting for kids and parents alike.

 

[Chris Rhines]

...well, like it or not we are represented....

Do you actually believe that getting to vote every so often means that you are represented in your government?

By taking up armed revolt of THIS nature against representatives that WE ELECTED these nutjobs are in fact attempting to deny us of OUR right to a duly elected representation.

Since you elected our current crop of political wastes of skin, does that mean that you accept some of the responsibility when those same politicans violate my rights?

- Chris

 

[saltydog]

Damn, I'm staying out of this debate.

 

[Libertyteeth]

Here are some items to ponder.

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. ...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

If a majority supposedly votes to elect representatives or a president who then suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in the name of some supposed emergency, I maintain that there is no legitimacy vested in this that we are bound to respect. And that is assuming that vote fraud, electronic or otherwise, has not occurred.

The colonists were revolting against the legal established government of the day, and did not have the active support of the majority of the people. That's the way it goes.

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

This would be true even if a majority supported a law duly enacted by lawfully elected representatives, which violated the Constitution. If I sincerely believed a law to be unconstitutional, I would not wait for the Supreme Court to agree with me, before I concluded it had no moral authority.

"t is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
— Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering

The ruling elites in this country have been working diligently for decades to establish what they now call "global governance", and our Constitution and Bill of Rights will not be a part of this. The UN is just a tool, one among many.

Libertyteeth

 

[TechBrute]

The battle cry of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" well, like it or not we are represented. If we elect people who do a piss poor job of representing us that is a mistake that is our right to make. By taking up armed revolt of THIS nature against representatives that WE ELECTED these nutjobs are in fact attempting to deny us of OUR right to a duly elected representation. Thats a violation of MY rights and yours. And i hope they are strung up for the traitors that they are.

Since we basically have a two-party system here in america, and neither party is to my liking, am I really represented?

 

[Art Eatman]

TechBrute, you may feel that you as one individual are not represented. In the U.S., the deal is that there is representation for groups. You're free to start your own group, selling your own ideas to get enough folks to vote in somebody whom you feel represents you, yourself and your group.

Art

 

[Wildalaska]

cyeager....well said!!!!!

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. ...

Now theres a source of Politcal News...I think Ill give up MAD magazine

WildthekingoftinfoilAlaska

 

[DMF]

TechBrute, you may feel that you as one individual are not represented. In the U.S., the deal is that there is representation for groups. You're free to start your own group, selling your own ideas to get enough folks to vote in somebody whom you feel represents you, yourself and your group.

Also, well said.

 

[c_yeager]

Since we basically have a two-party system here in america, and neither party is to my liking, am I really represented?

Funny, last time I voted there were six names on the ballot for president and more than two for most other offices. Vote for whoever you want, if your guy loses that means you arent part of the majority. The government doesnt represent you as an individual, it represents the country, state, district that it represents collectively. And that collective will is wielded by the majority of voters. If you happen to be in the political minority that is fine, you may work to change the views of other voters untill they agree with you, or you are simply going to have to be content with a country that doesnt bow to your own personal will.

It sounds to me like a lot of people want their minority political views to be those that run the show. There are a number of governments who work this way, in which a small group of people with unique views run the show for everyone. We just got finished removing a government of that nature in Iraq, and here we are trying to make one here. And hey that's your right, you can push for any government you want, no matter how wacky. But, the majority of voters including myself arent QUITE ready to start assembling a dictatorship in your image just yet.

Do you actually believe that getting to vote every so often means that you are represented in your government?

The ever revered founding fathers seemed to think so and yes, so do I. That is the basis of a representative government. Exactly how would you set up a government with adequate representation, if not with voting?

 

[TechBrute]

So at some point, ML is just a catchy saying. When the majority decide that guns are evil, then we'll just turn them all in.

I'm surprise that no one sees it. This guy thinks along the same lines that a large number of gun owners do, he is just more radical. How long will it be before YOU are the guy that is making the news as the "loony" that "possessed enough guns to arm a militia" just for owning guns.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Funny, last time I voted there were six names on the ballot for president and more than two for most other offices.

Of those six people, exactly none of them represented my views. The professional politicians who do have political views reasonably close to my own, I can count on the fingers of one hand.

Vote for whoever you want, if your guy loses that means you arent part of the majority.

And hence, I am not represented by the government that claims to serve me. Which wouldn't be so bad, if being unrepresented meant that I could stop paying taxes, but I digress...

The government doesnt represent you as an individual, it represents the country, state, district that it represents collectively. And that collective will is wielded by the majority of voters.

I do not care about "collective will," or any similar collective concepts. The only unit of society that matters is the individual, and the individual has no control whatsoever over the direction of his government.

I do not restrict this accusation only to the U.S. government - it is true for every form of government that I am aware of.

But, the majority of voters including myself arent QUITE ready to start assembling a dictatorship in your image just yet.

Heh. That would be funny. An anarchist dictator. I'd probably have to drag myself out into the street and string myself up in the name of the Revolution!!!

The point that I'm trying to make here is not that I want a government that represents only the individual - the world is full of dictatorships that represent the interests of the Maximum Leader and his cronies. The point is that individually representitive government is impossible, and that government should be done away with altogether.

The ever revered founding fathers seemed to think so and yes, so do I.

You, and the founding fathers, are wrong. Sorry. Just because a person is old, erudite, and possessed of some interesting political ideas, does not make him infallible.

That is the basis of a representative government. Exactly how would you set up a government with adequate representation, if not with voting?

As I stated before, truly representitive government is not possible, hence, I would not attempt to set up a government at all. I have no right to impose my social ideas on others, so I would leave them free to set up whatever form(s) of social system they desire.

I have my own ideas of what makes up a good and sucessful social system, and I like to think that I could attract some people who agree with me. My only demand is "Don't initate aggression against me, and I'll do the same for you." Pretty simple rule, I don't understand why it's not more widely observed.

- Chris







http://www.mrlizard.com/voterite.html

 

[Old Dog]

The only unit of society that matters is the individual, and the individual has no control whatsoever over the direction of his government.

This would appear to be a pretty scary belief.

I have my own ideas of what makes up a good and sucessful social system, and I like to think that I could attract some people who agree with me. My only demand is "Don't initate aggression against me, and I'll do the same for you." Pretty simple rule, I don't understand why it's not more widely observed.

So if you're living in a society with a group of like-minded individuals, what do you call that? Anyway, man by the name of Thomas Hobbes once explained all this pretty well (in "Leviathan"); he made a pretty good case for strong government. Then again, another 17th century English philosopher also had some intriguing arguments (government should depend on the consent of the people), many of which were a direct influence on our Founding Fathers.

At any rate, I'm still trying to figure out how someone starts arguing in favor of anarchy in response to a news article about some knucklehead who gets arrested for possession of illegal weapons, allegedly collected for his cause of overthrowing our present government.

 

[Chris Rhines]

This would appear to be a pretty scary belief.

Individual liberty can indeed be scary.

So if you're living in a society with a group of like-minded individuals, what do you call that?

I call it, "Living in a society with a group of like-minded individuals." What do you call it?

Anyway, man by the name of Thomas Hobbes once explained all this pretty well (in "Leviathan"); he made a pretty good case for strong government.

Yes, I've read Leviathan. My copy is sitting under my desk even as we speak. Thomas Hobbes was a sociopathic fascist, right up there in pure evil with Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. If I believed in Hell, I would hope that Hobbes is burning in it.

Hobbes did not make a strong case for anything opther than his own amorality.

Then again, another 17th century English philosopher also had some intriguing arguments (government should depend on the consent of the people), many of which were a direct influence on our Founding Fathers.

I assume that you're talking about John Locke here. I've read many of his works, as well. Although I find him far more agreeable than most Classical philosophers, Locke was not infallible either. His concept of governement existing with consent of the governed does not go quite far enough.

At any rate, I'm still trying to figure out how someone starts arguing in favor of anarchy in response to a news article about some knucklehead who gets arrested for possession of illegal weapons, allegedly collected for his cause of overthrowing our present government.

I didn't. I started arguing in favor of Voluntary Anarchism in response to someone's post about how the government is representitive.

- Chris

 

[Art Eatman]

Chris, seems to me you have some problems:

"I do not care about "collective will," or any similar collective concepts."

There's a general "collective will" among folks who sell you food. They all wanna get paid.

"The only unit of society that matters is the individual..."

If such be the case, lemme know when you find your island. There, you can be the Big Man In Charge Of All.

"...and the individual has no control whatsoever over the direction of his government."

You got it. Been that way for several thousand years, now...I notice that I've generally been out-voted for the last 50 or so, but I guess I'm just too lazy to start the "Art Eatman Knows All" political party.

The deal for government is not to trample the rights of an individual. Otherwise, an individual is of no interest or importance to the mass of all people--but his rights and their rights are the same.

There is a right to have an opinion. There is an equal right to ignore it. An opinion is only important when a majority of voters agrees.

Art

 

[Art Eatman]

It occurs to me that the big problem for an Anarchy is that you can't pass a law preventing soccer moms from nagging their husbands into creating a government.

, Art

 

[Old Dog]

Chris --
Well, I do tend to agree with you about Hobbes. He did, however, make a pretty compelling case on the nature of man; recent experiences of mine have have given me a greater understanding of man's brutality and I've seen what happens in a place where there is no working government and no enforcement of laws.

And yes, I was referring to Locke. One of the points (it seemed to me) that previous posters were attempting to make was that our government was, in fact, a representative form of government. Now comes the argument, who does the government truly represent?

I submit that our government is far more representative than we sometimes think, as well as being as representative as we want it to be. The current state of apathy (resulting, no doubt, from the fact that most of us all have our microwave ovens, DVD players, X-Boxes, two SUVs in the garage and fast PCs with cable modems) renders our present government less representative than it could be.

But my experience, which I know I share with many, is that when one bothers to actually communicate with elected representatives and officials -- on any level --, be it the country sheriff, city councilperson, state representative, they will respond. The response will not always be in the manner one desires or with the decision one asked for -- but the fact that we can communicate (and we do elect) these folks means that they represent us. And if one bands together with a group of like-minded individuals (there's that word again) to form a group to either officially or unofficially lobby one's elected representative, you have even more power and more influence. The system works. Not well, not always. But to paraphrase someone else, "The future belongs to those who show up."

 

[hammer4nc]

So, back to the case at hand...

Sure seems like draconian gun laws are being used to silence and/or punish dissenting political voices. A pre-emptive tool, which the statists on this board would surely applaud (i.e., "he was fixin' to commit a crime"); but in actuality is being targeted against thought crimes a la "Minority Report". Masquerading as a crackdown on violent career criminals (just ask DNF), the penalties have been ratcheting upwards, on first-time offenders. Was this guy a career criminal? He was a 400lb talk-show host wannabe, who just had a bypass! How many in the militia movement have been popped on illegal weapons charges? See a pattern here?

Just go back and analyze the political content in the "agents said" news release. I assert that all the religious-fringe crap spewed in that story has no place in a professional law enforcement news release, and belies a different agenda at work. Not very well hidden, if you read between the lines.

So, we're at the crossroads where democracy (the tyranny of the majority), encroaches on constitutional rights of individuals in the minority. (Though your assesment of where we are on this spectrum, may differ.) Of course, those who are comfortable with the status quo argue that the only legitimate means of political expression exists within the lines of nominating/electing candidates at large. How convenient.

Another example of "legal positivism"* being used to supress minority opinions.

*See Judge Andrew Napolitano's book: "Constitutional Chaos:what happens when the government breaks its own laws" Link:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785260838/102-3655911-9524905 Check it out at your library...

 

[Old Dog]

Of course, there's political content in the press releases ... And most of it comes from the media itself, not the government agency spokesperson. If we, the media subscribers, didn't demand that every single "newsworthy" event be milked for every aspect of sensationalism to titillate our fancies, we wouldn't be fed this crap. A simple news release to note the simple arrest of one fringe operator for weapons violations doesn't sell newspapers or work the television station's ratings ... I'll bet many of the local news articles noted the guy lived in a "compound" as well.

For gosh sakes, not everything is a government conspiracy on the part of the "statists" to suppress minority opinion.

Sometimes, events are what they are. In this case, a nutcase who broke the law and got busted.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Frankly, I think this guy was an idiot. If you set out to get yourself arrested, you could hardly plan it out any better. He broadcast his beliefs over the air. He confronted everyone. He sold illegal weapons with little or no discretion. How could anyone with an ounce of brains think he wouldn't attract attention?

This guy wasn't preparing for a revolt-he was just trying to pick a fight!

One of the first rules is: If the enemy has a thousand rifles pointed at you, don't dance in front of them with your tongue out.