Previous Post
Next Post

“The FBI said Monday that it is being inundated with calls from local government officials asking for assistance in dealing with anti-government extremists,” reports. I mention this because A) the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division’s use of the word “inundated” indicates incipient action of some sort (a.k.a., “something must be done”) and B) this statement may signal a return to an anti-gun strategy deployed by the liberal left about a year ago. Namely associating gun rights advocates’ anti-government sentiment with “armed extremism.” The same anti-pro-gun narrative that put Sarah Palin in hot water for using a reticle to identify electoral races where the Tea Party could oust incumbents. Paranoid much? Sure. In fact, try this on for size:

Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division [above], said the extremists — part of the “sovereign citizen” movement that advocates a rejection of government authority, taxes and laws — have the potential to prompt violence in their day-to-day encounters with police, judges, inspectors and other local government officials. McArthur said the movement, which first rose to prominence in the 1990s when anti-government fervor produced Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, has shown signs of escalating criminal activity. “Our focus has been increasing,” McArthur said.

Once again, America’s over-funded paramilitary police are looking for something to do. Here’s looking at you kid. Not to mention me.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. To the Federal Government all armed civilians are extremists.

    News at 11.Were it up to D.C. a man would need to prove ‘just cause’ to own an airsoft pistol.

      • Not if you contribute to their campaigns. Or, you can just hire a lobbyist with recent contacts. Politicians, contrary to rumor, can’t be bought. They can only be rented. It is continuity of renting, so that you are represented at key moments, that pays. Now if you can get them to provide YOU with some huge loans or monopolies (like a railroad ‘builder’ in the 19th century) then this whole renting thing can pay off and you will no longer resent it. I think the lesson is “support the NRA,” unless you want a very large individual bill.

      • It IS up to the morons in DC and personal liberty IS a thought crime and they won’t need camps, they have other things in mind for us.

    • Were it up to D.C, a man would need to prove just cause to not spend his entire life on a chain gang.

  2. We should be alert, very alert. How long to the definition of “armed extremist” is any typical gun enthusiast. Picture this: a fellow owns three or four rifles in different calibers, a couple of shotguns; a 12 gauge and a 2o gauge, and two or three pistols; a .22, a 9mm and a .45. He also reloads and has one or two hundred rounds for each caliber or gauge. I can almost guarantee what the media will say if he gets into any trouble and the police search his home. Do the words “A VIRTUAL ARSENAL” spring to mind? Ask the people you will vote for where they stand on the Second Amendment. We must roll back this too intrusive government by the only power we have; our votes.

    • If he has a bin freezer and a large pantry, he’s obviously stockpiling food and should be shipped overseas without a hearing or benefit of counsel. Thanks NDAA!

      • I’m beginning to think that the only reason SWAT does these raids is because they just love shooting dogs.

      • Why no mention or prosecution of the individual(s) that sent the package? Did I miss something? Whoever sent it was in obvious and intentional possession of said narcotics with intent to distribute. This is yet another highlight of why this war on drugs is beyond asinine.

        Also, it takes a sick, sick person to shoot a dog for no good reason. And to think the asshats that shot the dogs are on a SWAT team whose members are supposed to be “the best of the best” in law enforcement.

        Too bad the drug issue presents such an easy and convenient soap box for politicians to grandstand as actually doing something useful and law enforcement to justify extravagant budgets for paramilitary gear. Instead of laying off so many beat cops try cutting funding to the folks pulling this kind of crap.

        • these cops have essentially gotten away with this situation scott free and would do this again in a second if they felt they needed to.

  3. Well, responsibility and self-determination are “extreme” and “fanatical” ideas to progressives, so it’s only natural to expect things like this.

  4. More than 3 guns is already called an arsenal in the news. Hundreds of rounds includes a box of .22 bullets. I saw them refer to a 9mm pistol as an automatic assault pistol right on TV.
    The war of words continues. Just wait until they start jacking up taxes, imposing new rules on business operation, and using technology to monitor your movements, conversations, and financial transactions in detail unimaginable at the moment.

  5. “the movement, which first rose to prominence in the 1990s when anti-government fervor produced Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh”

    the movement, which first rose to prominence in the 1990s when anti-government fervor gave cover to the FBI’s false flag operation of bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building in which they used Timothy McVeigh as the fall guy.

    – Fixed.

    • Darn, Ralph, that’s an inflammatory sentence if I ever saw one. Laugh. I must live in a cave: I’ve never met one of these “dissociate ourselves from the US government” radicals. OK, I met one. He is a metals trader, lives in Zug, Switzerland, was an outlaw, and now is free to travel or live in the US, due to receiving a pardon from Clinton. I only brushed by him at a hotel 23 years ago. Still, I think he fit that “deny US authority” bit to a tee.

        • No, Ralph. That is the only think we have in common. Well, that and one bar membership. And Pincus Green was there, too. I didn’t get to speak with either of them. What would I say? “Can I have some of your money? Are you as crooked as they say?” In that order. He might have said yes to the first, who knows? Then I wouldn’t ask the second. OK, that’s one more thing Holder and I have in common.

  6. The sovereign citizen movement is not about personal responsibility and self-determination. Many of these people reject an affiliation with the US and declare themselves exempt from the laws of the land. I am all for responsibility, but the extra-legal actions these folks take is worrisome, not admirable.

    • So all those “laws of the land” which are contrary to the Natural Law we are still obliged to follow? Come on. I’m pretty sure you’ve got the right idea when it comes to “laws” concerning guns, now it’s just time to apply those principles consistently across all facets of life.

      The only laws we have an obligation to follow are those that are mala en se; all other mala prohibita laws should be left by the wayside.

      • “all other mala prohibita laws should be left by the wayside”
        Oh, come on. ALL? Like traffic laws? Laws regulating banking? I’ll agree we have too many laws in this country, but that doesn’t mean it is as cut-and-dried as the difference you suggest.

          • Agreed. But then, moonshining laws today have very little to do with safety and public health, and a whole lot to do with the big distilleries wanting to keep their market cornered.

        • Civic laws should follow the Natural Law. Don’t hurt others, don’t damage others’ property, don’t commit fraud, abide by voluntary contracts and don’t infringe upon others’ freedom. I agree that traffic customs are good (driving on the right side of the road, yielding for pedestrians), but the actions you take should only be illegal if you actually break the natural law. So, even if it’s the custom to drive on the right, it would be illegal for me do drive on the left only if I hurt someone, damaged something, or infringed on someone else. Thus, driving as fast as you want on the “wrong” side of a deserted highway would be perfectly legal.

          As far as banking regulations go, see the part about don’t commit fraud (or theft).

          • But it’s only “deserted” until somebody enters that highway, which is something you can’t predict, so driving on the wrong side (no scare quotes) is acting with reckless disregard to the safety of others.

            You benefit just as much as anyone else to agreeing to adhere to those conventions and agreeing to have them enforced as laws, because you don’t have the added danger of someone randomly deciding that the stretch of road you happen to be on is “deserted”, so they can go 120 miles an hour on the left side.

            • I agree that adhering to the conventions is safer and potentially more responsible, but if you don’t infringe on anyone else then you should not be punished. You cannot have crime without a victim and we should not “criminalize” potential danger or increased risk. If the guy going 120 down the left side doesn’t encounter any other drivers, then he has harmed no one. We should not punish him just because he has a greater potential to harm someone.

              • So attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime? If I try to kill you but fail, leaving you or anyone else entirely unharmed, I’ve commited no crime?

              • That’s not even covered under it and you damn well know it. I’d write some examples, but you’re being intentionally thick, so it would be a waste of my time.

              • I’m being intentionally thick? He’s the one saying that unless someone is harmed there can be no crime, no matter how dangerous the behavior is.

                By driving on the wrong side of the road at 120 miles per hour, you’re almost guaranteeing a head-on collision if anyone else gets on that road going the opposite way. If it happens that no one does, then it’s dumb luck that you’ve harmed no one, and it’s no credit to you. If you make it a regular practice, you will get somebody killed, without a doubt. You yourself will probably get killed as well, but that doesn’t compensate for the life you take by your reckless behavior.

                The whole point is that problems only arise with driving on one side or the other when rugged individualists like Henry decide to assert their “natural rights” and go their own way. It really doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, as long as everybody goes the same way. But since your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, your right to drive on whichever side of the road you choose also ends when everybody else needs to drive on the same roads. If the decision has been made to drive on the right, then you don’t get to endanger everyone else who might be out driving by deciding to drive on the left.

      • Ask a european, well-educated man of the 18th century what the natural laws were, and the answers would not line up with your or my ideas all that well. Truths that we take to be, oh, I don’t know, self-evident, would seem laughable to him. It is tough to talk about an adamantine set of laws that come through the ages when people, even people in a given society, would not agree with what those laws are.

  7. This is in the line of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

    If the government calls us “extremists” and “dangerous” often enough they will anger enough people that they will become “extremists” and “dangerous” — thus proving what the government said in the first place.

    The only way to win this is to become completely passive and do exactly as the government tells you all the time — thus accomplishing exactly what the government really wants.

    • Your logic is truly confusing and yet it’s spot on. Now tell that to the Feds or any politician for that matter and watch their heads blow up.

    • I would imagine that is what they’re hoping for. Rattle their cage. Get them riled up. Get them, above all, talking to each other on the net, especially to that other who happens to be a confidential informant. Classic police work. I bet they’re sick of chasing small-time coke smugglers, too. Look, the whole Mexican F&F thing fell apart. Time to move on to a greener field. And who could blame them? Promotions and budget authority are tough to come by these days. Also the left is afraid of these guys, the way urbanites think there’s a serial-killer behind every bush out in the countryside. It all works. (And no, let’s not be passive. Just believe what we believed last week and take part in local government. Don’t reject the laws, just hold the authorities to the laws pertaining to them. ACLU has a right and a left wing, surprisingly enough.)

  8. Here is my issue I support the idea of Self responsibility and understand where those that feel the government is to intrusive come from, at the same time though you can not partake in the society you claim to dislike and not follow the societal rules, doing so only creates strife and punishment for those outside the societal rules.

    If you truly feel particular laws are bad then work in the system to change societal views and the laws as such not saying the laws dont apply and the consequences shouldn’t either. take the Civil rights moment of the 50’s and 60’s, the act of violating the laws as it happend then was not to say they shouldn’t apply to the protestors it was to show how wrong the laws were. As such there was the expectation that there would be punishments for breaking societal norms and that it was expected. Because of this the stay in jail became part of the statement rather than anything else. Where as if you act like the punishment shouldn’t happen because the law is unjust then you just come off as a low life with no dignity or ability to see beyond your own nose.

    • I got a big laugh from this line in the report: “Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk.”

      Personally, I’m thrilled with tax collection. I love the IRS. I often wonder why I only pay a percentage of my income to the IRS when they should be taking all of it.

      /sarcasm off

      • Seems to me that most Americans are now by that definition sovereign members. I love these big scary abstract names: ‘insurgents’ and ‘sovereign members’. If the USG was still fighting the Native Americans, instead of the name Indians they would call them ‘unlearned populations’.

  9. If you believe in private citizens owning guns, physical gold and silver, home schooling, small government and low taxes, the Bill of Rights, the right to collect and keep the rainwater that falls onto your land, and using cast-iron cookware then you are a dangerous extremist.

    Yes, time for election year activity to show how the current Administration is protecting the sheeple. Seems to me that soon we’ll be reading a mass media news report about how some “sovereign citizen types” have committed an extremist act. If it does occur I wonder who really will be behind the act: False Flag act scene II.

    • The entire upper class believed those items since time immemorial, and still do, well, except they believe in the right to have someone else use the cast-iron cookware, and the the home-schooling is live-in tutors. But it’s all the same. I’m unsurprised that law enforcement finds the “Sovereign People” bit discomfiting. Still, I haven’t met one of these. Is it a western thing? Southern? I thought the NYPD guys busted for the M16 smuggling were making some kind of “We’re Sovereign” statement. Maybe I’m wrong? Complicated world….

  10. Yes, So I suppose that anyone who promotes smaller government is an “extremist” in the eyes of big government democrat and fat cat bureaucrats. Sounds to me as though the remnants of ACORN are prepping the battle space for the upcoming election.

  11. I suppose if you are a Libertarian and support Ron Paul, the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and inalienable rights; you are now an enemy of the state. Sounds like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas, Jefferson, George Mason, and Patrick Henry would be extreme radicals in FBI group think.

  12. Try this:
    I suppose if you are a Libertarian and support Ron Paul, the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and inalienable rights; you are now an enemy of the state. Sounds like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas, Jefferson, George Mason, and Patrick Henry would be extreme radicals in FBI group think.

  13. The Founding Fathers were ALL Sovereign Citizens. Just like the Brady Bunch’s attempt to boycott and intimidate StarBucks is being met with a counter-move by the pro gun community, it would be great to start a Sovereign Citizen movement with everything from bumper stickers to t-shirts to a web logo people can add to their sites.

  14. Okay, I get the outrage here, and I don’t disagree. But where the Hell are all you people when Big G’mnt is infiltrating, harrassing, and otherwise cracking down on leftist groups? The Bush administration put the Quakers on the Terror Watch List, for God’s sake! The FBI has a long history of going after radical left-wing groups. They were doing everything they could to bring down MLK. They likely helped murder Fred Hampton. The whole Judy Bari thing…and now, all these bogus arrests of “Islamic Radicals” (stupid kids) who were lured into plots by highly trained teams of FBI psyops people. The huge focus on “eco-terrorists.” Where are you people when it’s not you being repressed?

    • Where are you people when it’s not you being repressed?

      At the range, making sure that we’re not easy to repress.

      • An honest, excellent answer. But I ask a serious question. Are civil liberties only for the armed? And the idea that the Feds leave you alone because you’re armed is ludicrous. It’s idealogical. Leftists pose more of a threat to the system. Righty’s tend to shut up and do as they’re told (present company excepted). Maybe I’ll put after every post- “THIS IS NOT A FLAME.”

        You continue to be a gentleman and a scholar, Ralph.

        • Under the surface, I don’t see much of a difference between the temperaments and intellect of the commonly-defined right and the left. One side gets out of bed on the right side and the other on the left. I see camps of sheeple offering the puppet masters opposition and opportunity requiring different ways to exploit and control.

          Gun ownership is often revered too much for keeping government tyranny in check and yet gun ownership may have helped to keep the elites from pushing society too far too fast in their long march.

          It would be comical if not so true how after reading Orwell and Machiavelli their ideas and strategies for controlling people and change can be seen being applied to the masses.

  15. The domain name is already taken.

    from wiki:
    ‘The sovereign citizen movement is a loose network of American litigants, commentators, and financial scheme promoters, classified as an “extremist anti-government group” by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.’

    Yup, anyone who sells or buys gold or silver is an extremist. Am I living in the dawn of the Fourth Reich? Heil Obama?

    • The sovreign citizen people are crazy. A lot of other people are equally crazy. We have the right to be crazy.

      • I get your meaning though I might use some other word phrase than ‘crazy’ such as ‘fed-up and pissed-off’. Unfortunately, there is no utopia form of government and economic system. We do have a right to be angry with ourselves because the people are the ones that give tyranny the breathing room to exist.

        Being a sci-fi fan, I read that during the 1930s the FBI raided the home of several Yale sci-fi fans and literature students. The FBI allegedly kicked in the front door armed with Thompson submachine guns to apprehend the crazy dangerous students who liked to put on space alien outfits and attack each other in the front yard with blunt swords. BTW, Issac Asimov was one of the students who lived at the house. The mindset of people who work for government can be frightening. I prefer to keep the size and scope of government power limited.

  16. Timmy Geithner, had a tax issue, is he sovereign? Perhaps the FBI should make an example out of him.

  17. “Paranoid much? Sure.”

    “You’re not paranoid if they are really out to get you.” OR:

    “I know I’m paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?”

Comments are closed.