Leaked Emails Show Civil War in Montana GOP

The big news today, if it is news at all, is that Republicans in Montana are at war with each other.

Some juicy emails [PDF] were published by the Great Falls Tribune Wednesday, showing the machinations of rightwing Republicans such as Jeff Essmann and Art Wittich as they try to vanquish the moderates, led by ousted Senate President Jim Peterson, and pack the Montana Supreme Court with TEA Party activist judges.  Presumably, these missives were leaked by one of the moderate legislators in the scrum, who thought it would be good to publicize the schism.

There are some hilarious exchanges, and the article in the Trib, by John Adams, is required reading for anyone interested in Montana Politics.   It’s fun to observe the various leaders, or aspiring leaders, openly agitating against the opponent faction.

But it is also quite disturbing.    For the emails reveal that the objective of Tea Party Republicanism is to control all branches of Government, with absolute power, in its entirety.   Here is an excerpt from a September 2012 e-mail by Essmann to his ultra-conservative cohorts (the subject line of the email is “Agenda Control”) about how a redistricting of legislative seats will make the ultimate goal achievable:

Jon Bennion was able to draw a map with 63 safe Republican seats.  If we can implement the long term strategy we will be in a position to actually elect a majority of conservatives in both bodies, adopt conservative legislation and have a court that will uphold it.


And here is one from Art Wittich, describing efforts to get rid of moderates in GOP primaries:


We must help the purge along. Hopefully, a new phoenix will rise from the ashes.

Sadly, these writings and many of the other emails that were disclosed to the Tribune reveal an almost jihadist mentality at work.  The right wing of the GOP views itself as an historic movement seeking a distant, ultimate triumph in which the opposition will be vanquished and the right-wing view of the world will be imposed,  imposed upon all Montanans even if a majority of the voters don’t want it.

How can this type of thinking possibly be the basis for a successful political movement?  It can’t, which is why Republicans are currently circling down the toilet nationally.  America has a two-party system and regardless of what party you are in, to be taken seriously and help the greater good you must work with the opposition, and accept the fact that your opponents are not enemies, but simply a counterbalance representing the viewpoints of many.



127 Comments on "Leaked Emails Show Civil War in Montana GOP"

  1. Better not to say civil war. They’re into that.

    • Today’s Trib – Essmann claims the caucus is “unified”- suicide is a more apt word.


      This guy is embarrassing himself and his fellow party members on a greater level then I had thought possible before, and last session was pretty embarrassing. The real “reveal” with those emails was their strategy to take over the supreme court, push hard right bills, and quash everything else. So much for working together to find common ground!

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 16, 2013 10:20 PM at 10:20 PM |

    Jeebus. And I thought that ReePubes were dumber than dog shit! Well, apparently, so are Dems!

    Obama and Biden have single-handidly insured that the ReePubes will be in power for a long, long time to COME in places like Montana! How f*cking stoopid can they get? Jeebus. No WONDER I’m an independent! This is some stoopid, stoopid shit! Lay off the gun control! It’s a loser, always was, and always will be!

    Stoopid, stoopid shit!


    Keep f*cking with gun control and you WILL start a fucking civil war! For if you automatically criminalize gun owners, I don’t BLAME them for getting upset!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:28 AM at 7:28 AM |

      I’ll keep my guns thank you very much. You can keep the change!


      When guns are outlawed, only cops will have guns. And Blackwater, and Xe, and corporate private armies, and corporate thugs, and the CIA, and FBI. No thanks, you keep the change, I’ll keep my guns.

      And yes, if you push the issue, people WILL get hurt. That is not a threat, but simply the reality. The people of America will not willingly surrender their arms for ANY American government, nor should they. They are a rightful, healthy, patriotic distrust of their government. And that is how it should be.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:33 AM at 7:33 AM |

        I know that Dems regularly kick a hornet’s nest, but ferchrissakes, DON’T put your nuts in it after you kick it! This executive order shit has unnecessarily stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest I can ever remember. How dumb can they get?? Good question, right? Gun measures will NOT prevent anything!


        • Why is it so difficult for you to write something about the topic of the article?
          I see your name, read the first sentence, and it always has some inane, crass, irrelevant comment that wastes your and our time.
          I respect your opinion and your right to voice it, but could you at least keep it to the topic at hand?

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 6:33 PM at 6:33 PM |

            Staunch, this issue is of such importance that I felt it necessary to intrude. Sorry. But you see, I’m all about avoiding violence if we can. Start taking guns, and I guaran-frickin-TEE you that people will get hurt. GOOD people. Probably law enforcement people who simply want a job to feed their kids. Why should they die needlessly?

            Let’s try to avoid that, shall we? Let’s be frank in our discussion of government WAY overreach. An executive order banning ANYthing is putting your nuts in the hornest’s nest. Would YOU do that???

            • I just came across an article by Thom Hartmann called “The Second Amendment was Created to Protect Slavery.” It explains the “well regulated militia” part. Apparently southern delegates insisted on armed state militias to go after escaped slaves and to put down slave rebellions.

              Someone who knows how might want to link to it.

              The ugly history of the amendment, and the claim from (white)pro-gunners that guns “won the west” (i.e., allowed whites to efficiently commit genocide against Native Americans), make it hard for me to see the current argument in entirely non-racial terms.

              Oh, and I nearly forgot. For the first time in our history we have a president who isn’t completely white. Are racial motives converging in this argument? Have they been implicit in it all along?

              Some pro-gunners might say, “Hey! I’m no racist!” To these people I say what one of my teachers once told me: Sometimes it’s a good idea, in the midst of a controversy, to look around and see who’s on your side.

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 18, 2013 8:00 AM at 8:00 AM |

                Racist? Yeah, that’s it. You see, silly arguments just bolster the pro gun position.

                BTW, what actually KILLED off all the Indians was disease. True story, check it out.

                And poor Custer’s defeat was the result of government poor judgement. You see, Custer’s troops were carrying the 1873 Springfield trapdoor rifle with copper shells. It was a single shot, and the Indians were carrying the Winchester .30-30 lever gun. Custer was simply outgunned, especially since his Springield was the carbine model which had no cleaning rod because of it’s length. As a resulty, when the copper shells were fired, the soldiers were unable to quickly get the shells out of their rifles. They didn’t have a chance. When they switched to brass, the problem was pretty much solved. But too late for Custer.

                (p.s. for the record, the Springield Trapdoor is a splendid weapon. I love them. One of the best early long range shooters. Buffington sights go out to a 1000 yards.)

                Also of course, the Indians were superior in number and fighting tactics.

                The Indians, who had probable never heard of the second amendment, used it quite effectively to prevent government overreach.

                But racist? That’s the silliest argument I’ve heard in a long time.

        • Larry, Can you clarify something for me? Are you opposed to ANY restrictions on weapons or ammo clips? Are you afraid that the govt wants to take away your assault weapon and your 30 round clips?

          If you have this kind of fire-power at your house, why do you have it?

          If you own hunting rifles or shot-guns (as I do), your weapons are totally safe. No one, including Obama, has ever indicated any interest in going after these kinds of guns.

          Are you buying into the slippery slope argument? Why?

          • Although I am not Larry, I play him on TV.

            “If you have this kind of fire-power at your house, why do you have it?”

            Some of us enjoy target shooting in the great outdoors. Some of us enjoy unloading a banana clip at a field of gophers in the springtime.

            Last time I checked, we still live in Montana.

            • So you need an M16 to kill gophers? Really? Does your pleasure in killing them while chopping up turf justify their general availability?

              Gopher killing is the lamest excuse for having an assault weapon I’ve ever heard.

              • The point, Turner, is that one shouldn’t need an “excuse” to legally own property, even a semi-automatic firearm.

                I’m just suggesting that it would help ahelluva lot if people discussing a ‘ban’ could be clear about ‘ban on sale’ and a ‘ban on ownership’. They are not the same thing at all and to use them interchangeably just muddies the waters.

                • Rob, My position on semi-automatic weapons, which until recently was pretty wishy-washy, is now absolute. Weapons like the Bushmaster shouldn’t be owned by civilians. Period.

                  Changing the subject, do you favor revoking the ban on fully automatic weapons? A guy could kill twice the number of gophers (or children) with them.

                  Why would a person support ownership of semi-automatics while accepting a ban on machine guns? And, no, I’m not claiming this is your position — though it may be.

                  • Thank you for being clear. No, I do not support a repeal of the ‘ban’ on fully automatic weapons, because that ban itself contains provision whereby a private citizen, fully licensed, vetted and insured can purchase and own those weapons, up to a point (lets not go into explosives, tanks, cannons or true weapons of mass destruction.) That ban is a restriction on ownership and sale, with full regulation of transfer. But, for those who do qualify for their class 3 FDL, they don’t have to “excuse” their motivations to society at large, anymore than someone who has a semi-auto .22 should have to have an excuse for it’s ownership.

                    The two primary reasons a ban on ownership of semi-auto assault style rifles won’t work, are 1) they are too difficult to define in a legal sense, and 2) there are simply too many such weapons already purchased and legally owned. Due to after-market modification, illegal purchase and a variety of other reasons, there are a ton of fully automatic weapons already privately owned outside of current enforced law. Those are not at all a problem until they are used in the commission of a violent crime. Those who legally own fully auto weapons don’t use them in such crimes because that’s a one way ticket to either prison or the grave. The moral of that story is simple. The problem isn’t property ownership, or even the feared use of that property. The problem we face is the use of such tools in violent crime. Just like with fully auto weapons, I suggest that the solution is not found in banning ownership, but in control of transfer.

                    Let me respect your position by also being very clear. Firearms have one purpose, and it isn’t the same as a knife or a computer or a baseball bat or an axe or a car or anything else that can be used to hurt people. Guns put damaging holes in things, paper, gophers, deer, elephants, enemies and children. That’s what they do. That is all they do. Firearms were designed to kill, and do so with varying efficiency of purpose. What you want regulated is efficiency of that purpose, somewhat hidden behind the purpose itself. However, banning efficiency in a legally obtainable tool is a lost cause. It simply can’t be done.

                    Guns are not singular in their design and purpose of killing. Poisons (like antibiotics) are designed for the same purpose, to kill. Some are regulated and some are not, like weed killers. Please remember that the largest singular event mass murderer in American history didn’t use firearms. He used cyanide (easily obtainable), Kool-Aid (still totally unregulated) and religious intimidation and manipulation (one of Americas most profitable growth industries.) The blame didn’t fall to the poison or the efficiency with which it worked. But, where guns are singular in methods of destruction is that the right to own them (given caveats) is enshrined in the US Constitution. That really does matter when advocating a ban on ownership. Regulation on transfer, however … That might be something to look at.

                    • Rob, Thanks for full explanation. I’ve actually printed it out so I can read it more carefully later.

                      I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that people of good will can find a way of defining semi-automatic weapons so they can be regulated or even (gasp!) confiscated.

                    • Nice video. Also raising a false dilemma, Craig. No one seems concerned that a guy who hits one target with one reload in under 3 seconds is the same as a guy who kills 12 different targets, wounding 70 people, in under ten minutes with no reload are even remotely the same, save you.

                      And I congratulate you. As you contend that legal gun owners shouldn’t be held responsible for those who commit gun crime, you, yes *YOU*, equate the two. This guy set a record in competitive shooting of a revolver. It took you to show how he could be dangerous against human targets. Well done.

                    • Rob, how utterly asinine on your part to torture logic to make a personal insult. I was asking Turner, as he thinks somehow autos and semi-autos are way to dangerous. Usually someone reaches that conclusion based on rate of fire and physical cosmetics. aNow, reflect on what a revolver is capable of doing by merely changing magazine cylinders calls into question the assault on cosmetic features of scaring looking firearms versus actually function. Just what are the bans trying to accomplish? If you don’t understand, perhaps Ken can explain it to you.

                    • Funny that, Craig, I didn’t insult you at at all, but you think yourself that much above disagreement. Bully for you. What someone “usually” concludes means nothing if you don’t ask them, and you never did. You just assumed, making an ass of “U” and “med”. No one in this conversation brought up the idea that wheel guns might be a problem, until you did. Good job.

                      I already explained to Turner, in a hopefully non-offensive manner, how efficiency can’t likely be regulated. But not you. *YOU* must be acknowledged, and I laughing at your weak attempt must somehow have insulted what was obviously weak. YOU MUST BE PAID DUE ATTENTION! Boo Hoo, kitten. No, no, not really at all. Yes, now I am insulting you, and you rightly deserve it.

                      A Revolver isn’t capable of anything, save perhaps being a paperweight. The guy shooting it is capable of a great deal, especially if he is shooting towards a world’s record. All of that is beside the point, as I clearly pointed out multiple times previous. A revolver has never been used to kill 12 people and injure 70 in a matter of 10 minutes, nor has a person shooting for a world record ever killed anybody. Your bullshit doesn’t apply to the discussion, Craig.

                      And don’t try to set an opposition between myself and my brother. 1) He goes by Kenneth, not Ken. Ken is our father. 2) You don’t understand shit about how or why we disagree. Your lame attempt to manipulate is as disgusting as daring one to eat dog shit. Ain’t gonna happen, dipstick. 3) Even though I expressly defined the word “ban” as applying to specific circumstance, you are way too without nuts to accept that distinction. You are gutless, Craig. That hasn’t been a mystery to me for quite some time now. My brother gets it, because we actually discuss. You … not so much.

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:46 PM at 7:46 PM |

                    Indeed a nice video. Reminds me of the British .303 Enfield. During WWI, the Germans reported back to their superiors that they were encountering machine gun fire, when in reality it was simply the rapid firing Enfield. Great gun BTW.

                    The fast-operating Lee bolt-action and large magazine capacity enabled a well-trained rifleman to perform the “Mad minute” firing 20 to 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute.[10] Some straight-pull bolt-action rifles were thought faster, but lacked the simplicity, reliability, and generous magazine capacity of the Lee-Enfield. First World War accounts tell of British troops repelling German attackers who subsequently reported that they had encountered machine guns, when in fact it was simply a group of trained riflemen armed with SMLE Mk III rifles

      • Larry, given your stated position here that “The people of America will not willingly surrender their arms for ANY American government, nor should they. They are a rightful, healthy, patriotic distrust of their government. And that is how it should be.” how does that differ from what Marbut wrote in his letter: http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_a626d1b0-5d29-11e2-b22a-0019bb2963f4.html

        I do hope to inform you about how strongly the gun owners of Montana feel about their right to keep and bear arms. I have asked around among a considerable number of friends, acquaintances and contacts in Montana. I have not learned of anyone who would comply, for example, with a new federal law requiring them to register or surrender their semi-auto rifles to authorities.

        Let me be very clear: Montanans will not comply with any new federal restrictions. The most any such restrictions would do would be to create a huge, new, armed, outlaw class of citizens. And, I very much doubt that most Montana law-enforcement personnel would cooperate in enforcing any such federal restrictions.

        Clearly, the vast numbers of citizens who have bought new firearms in the past month, especially the hundreds of thousands of expensive semi-auto rifles, did not buy these new firearms simply so they’d have them available to surrender if Congress should pass a law demanding they do so.

        Conclusion. Since Montana law enforcement personnel are unlikely to enforce any such restrictions, the effect of passage of such restrictions would ultimately be for federal officers to come to Montana to enforce them. Because most Montanans will simply not comply with any new federal restraints on a right they have reserved specifically from government interference, the obvious result would be armed conflict between Montanans and federal enforcers. (I offer this not as a threat or a challenge, but simply as an observation.)

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 6:28 PM at 6:28 PM |

          I must say that I agree with Marbut on this editorial. His other one in the IR was a little too far out for me.

          But he is right. ONLY a f*cking idiot would believe that Americans would willingly submit to gun registration or confiscation.

          And Marbut does not speak for me, nor does the NRA. For you see, I determined long ago that I didn’t need a group to protect my guns. I would do that myself, JUST like many other patriotic Americans. Come lookin’ to take/register my guns, and someone is going to lose. Sure, it may be me, but by GOD I’ll give a good account of myself! Is that a threat? No. I just refuse to allow the government to make me a criminal by fiat! The Founding Fathers did NOT ever fear an armed citizenry! Why should they have? I would tell ANY government enforcement dude that if your ride with an outlaw, you DIE with an outlaw! Nuthin’ personal.

          • “Sec. 10. And be it further enacted,Brigade inspector’s duty. That it shall be the duty of the brigade-inspector to attend the regimental and battalion meetings of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition, and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and manœuvres, and introduce the system of military discipline before described throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander-in-chief of the state; to make returns to the adjutant-general of the state, at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition of the several corps,1803, ch. 15 and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and the general advancement of good order and military discipline; and the adjutant-general shall make a return of all the militia of the state to the commander-in-chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the President of the United States”


            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:21 PM at 7:21 PM |

              Sorry, Lynn, but I believe that the Founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They rated IN importance the Amendments. First, free speech, and NO f*cking religeeous bullshit and shennanigans. Second, the Second Amemdment. Yes, it’s THAT important.

              These guys were very, very bright and prescient, for the were men of the world and knew their history well.

              • George Washington was a founder, that’s his law, “Well Regulated”

                ie the Gov had the right to inspect your guns and ammo.

                Gun shows won’t let carry a loaded gun in


                It’s simple, Close the Gun Show loophole re Background checks and treat guns like cars, Register and insure them.

                If your car damages someone or thing, your insurance pays. Same with a gun. You can decrease your insurance costs by having gun cabinets or taking safety courses. If you get a DUI, you lose your Drivers License/car, if you do something stupid with a gun…..


                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 8:13 PM at 8:13 PM |

                  Sorry, Lynn, but you’re scaring even fellow gun loving libs talking like that.

                  Again, the Second Amendment was second in importance for a reason, a damn good reason.

                  Nothing that has been proposed would have stopped any of the mentally ill shooters. We need NOT assume that law abiding citizens need to be viewed as guilty of anything.

                  • I’m not saying that. I’m saying that from a cops point of view the world has changed and i think that’s part of what we’re seeing with the Check points. I’ve been pissed as hell when I’ve gone though them. I’ve also been pissed as hell when friends of mine have been hurt or killed by drunk drivers. Or when something like Newtown happens, a person who should not have had access to guns got them. Somewhere their has got to be a middle ground that protects rights of ALL or at least most. I keep my gun safe, so why should I have to be prepared to hit the dirt because on of my neighbors does not and his drunk teenage kid has it? A friend in Denver is carrying a bullet in his shoulder from New Years Eve 2000 (All those shots fired in the Air at Midnight…what goes up must come down….)

                    Somewhere there has to a middle ground.

                  • No, Larry, I don’t think she’s scaring anybody, save those who are already scared. Also:

                    Nothing that has been proposed would have stopped any of the mentally ill shooters.

                    That’s not entirely true. Separate, for a moment, the proposals coming from the more extreme elements of Congress (proposals that, being extreme, will go no where) and the Executive orders issued by Obama. Several of those orders could well have prevented these tradegies, including but not limited to:

                    Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

                    Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

                    Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

                    Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, an effort that so far has been stymied by gun advocates for no reason. Head in the sand isn’t a solution to anything, but then the NRA isn’t really interested in solutions, is it?

                    Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. Such reporting would have worked against Sideshow Bob.

                    There were also several orders specifically targeting the improvement of mental health services in the US, something would have greatly assisted the case of Adam Lanza. It’s funny though, every con website that lists these proposals still assumes the same thing, that OBAMA goin’ to take yer guns. That is not within the power of the executive branch, as much as the gutless, right and left, in Congress want you to think so. But picking and choosing which proposals are serious under the blanket claim that none of them would accomplish anything is a right wingnut narrative, and not at all helpful.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 18, 2013 6:21 PM at 6:21 PM |

                      Yep! You’re right. You made my case for me. The problem is NOT with guns, but with society in general. On this we agree. So, hopefully all the Feinsteinians out there will close pie hole long enough to clarify just what it is that they might want to try. Heck, maybe a good photo op is as good as actual policy! Works for me. Pose with a turned in gun chopped in half,and then move on. That’s what politicians do anyway.

                      But actual attempts at restricting honest gun owners’ rights based upon a few incidents is a proven loser. ANY teacher will tell you that you do NOT punish the entire group based upon the actions of a few.

                      But again, I don’t know how many times we have to go down the same road. The absolutely QUICKEST way to lose an election in Montana (or most places) is to proclaim oneself for gun control. That is a fact which cannot be disputed. Ask anyone who’s tried it in the last fifty years or so.

              • Actually, Larry, no. The original bill of rights contained 12 proposed amendments. The states failed to ratify the first two (congressional apportionment and congressional pay), making the original third (freedom of religion, etc) the first amendment and the original 4th (keep and bear arms) became the 2nd amendment. Nothing that I’ve read suggests that the Founding Fathers “ranked” the amendments by importance; they were suggestions taken during the Constitutional ratification process a year earlier and were based on existing “bills of rights” from various documents. As near as I can tell they were randomly written down, formalized through Congressional action and presented to the states for ratification.

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 18, 2013 6:45 PM at 6:45 PM |

                  “Nothing that I’ve read suggests that the Founding Fathers “ranked” the amendments by importance”

                  Yes, but it COULD be true then, and I suspect it was. Now, just WHAT was Jefferson gonna send along with Lewis and Clark to defend themselves with, bear spray?

                  The Founders were reality based dudes, and the reality of the times needed NO argument at to whether or not individual citizens were going to be allowed firearms. It was a given. The IMPORTANT thing was that no entity was going to be ablet to TAKE guns from them.


                  • We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Many of the FF felt that a bill of rights wasn’t even needed, that all the individual protections and freedoms were contained in the actual Constitution. But, when the first Congress met, enough concern was raised to submit the bill of rights to the states. And we have to remember the times and what the country had just come through. Most of the bill of rights were based on the actions and abuses of the British Gov’t against our citizenry (thus the failure of the first two) and were easily adopted since the issues were fresh in the minds of the people. It’s hard to imagine that, given the circumstances at the time, that the 2nd amendment was somehow more important than the 1st (freedom of speech/religion) or the 4th (unreasonable searches) or the 8th (cruel and unusual punishment)

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 9:30 AM at 9:30 AM |

                      Agreed. We all like to think that we knew what the FF intended. I happen to agree with Edward Abbey’s point. It was a new country, a new kind of country, a country where not ONLY were the nobles armed.

                      The land itself was as important as ANY other influence on these new ideas of freedom, and the land could NOT be seperated from arms. One HAD to be self-reliant to make it here, and you couldn’t do it without firearms.

                      Hence, I believe that firearms and freedom for the FF were one in the same. FINALLY, for the first time in history, the common man could possess a weapon equal to the nobles! And he could hunt the land as an equal!

                      Very important stuff.

                      But I’m happy to disagree.

                      p.s. The Native American influence on the founders was great, as you probaly are aware.

          • Larry, I appreciate you honest. No one speaks for me either. None of the folks you constantly ask me to embrace ever write or call me to ask my opinion. You know what?, if they did they may not like my response. Take care. The gun ban efforts should unite us.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 6:39 PM at 6:39 PM |

              Yes, it does unite us on this issue. History is replete with disarmed people who could not fight back. (I’m sure you know) But OUR history is different. Call it mutally assured distruction if you want, but it effectively takes OFF the table rule by force in America! And I think that THAT scares the shit outta the control freaks in government.

              • Agreed.

              • So, Larry, who has proposed coming to take you guns? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

                Nobody. Nobody is coming to take your guns. It’s that simple.

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:44 PM at 7:44 PM |

                  I hope not. But I can’t abide ANY infringement on gun rights. There are enough already, including the Class III gun restrictions you mentioned. You see, gun registrtion IS a precursor to confiscation in my opinion. Always will be. The government does NOT need to know what firearms I have. Period!

                  Bottom line? When I hear a president, ANY president, say that he is going to do ANY gun control measures by executive action, I call bullshit on that. One man, ANY man, does not have that right.

                  Obama made a HUGE mistake, one for which all Dems will now have to suffer. He has infused the rightwing with life for the forseeable future. Why? Is he really that f*cking stupid? I don’t get it.

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:52 PM at 7:52 PM |

                    p.s. Allow me an analogy. These so-called “security stops” that the cops are using now days are absolutely unconstitutional and illegal, and people are getting extremely upset about this bullshit. And eventually, someone is going to get hurt. Why? Why should this be allowed to happen?

                    It shouldn’t. So- called security checks are f*cking illegal, but they do it anyway.

                    Now, think gun control. Sure, it’s unconstitutional and illegal, but they do it anyway! Think Katrina. There was MUCH illegal gun confiscation. All illegal.

                    You can trust the government all you like, but I can’t.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 7:58 PM at 7:58 PM |

                      There’s tons of stuff on the net of people simply telling the cops to kiss their ass at these checkpoints.


                      Some are funny as hell. And THIS is indeed a mild prescursor to what will happen with gun registration and confiscation. Guns do NOT need to be registered. There is NO point to treating law abiding citizens as criminals. When the anger reaches critical mass, which it will, shit will happen. I want to avoid all that. That’s all.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 8:10 PM at 8:10 PM |

                      My personal favorite:

                      “Sir, would you please pull over here?”

                      “No thank you.”



                      Can you tell me how many guns you have?

                      No thank you. Now kiss my American ass!

                • Really? Senator Dianne Feinstein, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. ” Then there is the NY legislation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/ny-gun-control-laws-anger-police-retired_n_2495417.html

                  The new law allows officers who have 10-bullet clips to keep the clip, but they must load them with only seven bullets. For officers who have 15-bullet magazines, they must turn them in and replace them with seven-shot clips.

                  A magazine, as you know, is an integral part of a firearm. Please don’t start with NY is not Montana. Just sets precedent and cover for grabbers to nibble like an advancing cancer with an insatiable appetite .

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 17, 2013 8:40 PM at 8:40 PM |

                    I will put it as succinctly as I know how.

                    Do I think that a bunch of armed citizens can overthrow the government and the military? Of course not. That’s absurd. The military is much to powerful.

                    Do I think that the government and military can defeat an armed citizenry? AbsoLUTELY not! For the costs would be far too enormous to bear. And like it that way.

                    Thinks I’m kidding? Well, look at the sheriffs around the country who are already telling the government to fuck off the gun control shit. Mulitply that by millions.

                    Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect that NOTHING will unite the American people like any attempt to destroy the Second Amendment. For it’a already happening, and the Dems/Dims are on the outside looking in. What stupid fucks!

                    That’s all I got to say about that.

                  • Criag, do you check under your bedskirts at night to make certain that Feinstein isn’t under there waiting to take your guns while you sleep? I know that English is a tricky sort of language, but you did see that big *IF* at the start of Feinstien’s quote, right? Let me counter with this, IF I could magically make everyone bullet proof like Superman, I would. Feinstein has not once submitted legislation that would mandate confiscation, despite her declared desire for such a thing. She is the extreme, the one you focus on to frighten any who would want more rational gun control measures, (which surprisingly, most Americans now favor.)

                    As to New York, no it really isn’t Montana, and New York legislators don’t make laws for us. Neither does California’s legislature. I’d thought you’d gotten it by now that I am not very susceptible to irrational fear.

                • These Security Checks probably would not be happening if there were not so many armed drunks on the road. I agree they go way to far (been in a few) but I also almost lost my life to a drunk driver……had to spend a lot of years learning to walk again because of his right to drive drunk. People have declared open season on Cops and Firefighters….

  3. Krayton Kerns weighs in on the scandal, blaming reporters:
    “GOP Advances Agenda to BBQ the Easter Bunny”

    Facing a terrifying news deadline, an un-named reporter spotted Rep. Clark’s HB114 and HB115 and thought he smelled a story. Adding the details of the two bills, he arrived at the hunch Montana was building a pork slaughter plant. Representative Clark told him he was wrong, but he made her promise not to spill his scoop to other reporters. She laughed, agreed and then told us this story while waiting for House Ag Committee to convene. During the live-audio question phase of the public hearing, a brilliant idea ricocheted inside my skull. “I’m going to give that poor reporter a storyline,” I thought deviously. With Chairman Randall’s permission I grabbed the microphone and asked, “Representative Clark, HB115 allows the slaughter of rabbits. Am I correct?”

    “Yes,” she responded.

    “Bunnies?” I emotionally offered as if I was getting a lump in my throat.

    “Yes,” she fired back.

    “The Easter Bunny?” I added making my voice quake as if I was near an emotional breakdown.

    “It allows the harvest of commercially raised rabbits,” she said as she rolled her eyes in disgust at my questioning.

    “Mr. Chairman, no further questions,” I stated matter-of-factly as laughter erupted around the committee room. “Because he was listening, I just wanted to give Representative Clark’s poor reporter a headline.”

    With the rap of Chairman Randall’s gavel, the Ag Committee adjourned and this brings me to my point. During the session, when you see headlines such as the GOP barbequing the Easter Bunny, expect the story to be based on a fib. Unlike the state run media, in my column I tell you when I am stretching the truth. I purposely stretched this headline just to make a point.

  4. When Bruce Tutvedt presents himself as a moderate, you know just how far right his party has lurched.

  5. Exactly – Nor was Peterson. Essmann Wittich, Priest, Moore and crew are right of Atila the Hun.

  6. The most juicy “reveal” in these emails is the GOP right-wingers’ strategy. They packed certain committees with their henchmen so that they could control the agenda. Now we know why they don’t want to open the “Committee on Committees” to the public.

    They plan to undermine anyone who tries to work with the Dems and Bullock.

    They want to take over the Supreme Court so that their unconstitutional nonsense will be upheld, and finally, they’ll use Jason Priest’s money to primary anyone who crosses them.

  7. Taylor Brown just proved he is nothing more than a paid mouth piece with a cowboy twang. Like any radio host he’ll say what ever someone tells him to say. Not an origional thought in his head.

  8. How can they claim to be ‘patriotic Americans’ if their goal is dictatorship? That’s the part I have never understood.

  9. One ring to rule them all . . .

  10. I often hear the term “more conservative” when discussions turn to the Republican Party, as in, “we’re looking for more conservative members”. What defines someone as “more conservative”? We already know they’re anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-education, anti-environment, etc. And their response will be that they’re pro-jobs, pro-tax cuts, pro-freedom, etc. Pretty standard stuff and as vague today as it was 30 years ago.

    So just what IS the definition of being “more conservative”? Is there a boundary that an R can cross where even other R’s will label someone as “too conservative”? Or is it like porn: they’ll know it when they see it?

  11. Dear Cowgirl,
    If America had something greater than a two party system, like 3, 4, or 5 parties, the extremes, on either side, would be less likely to appear to begin with. That America is “stuck” in the two party system shows the lack of knowledge and initiative on the part of the electorate about modern democracies and how they CAN function when they take that step, or leap beyond two parties. Interesting that in forming the new government two branches were deemed insufficient to control extremism, so a third equally powerful branch was added to the newly forming democracy to insure no one branch could do serious harm to another. The two party system is doing more to cripple and retard American Democracy than help it grow and prosper.
    Two parties may have been enough to define a people over 200 years ago, but they cannot even begin to express the thoughts and dreams of Americans today.

    John Marshall

  12. We do have more than a two party system right now. We have the democrats, we have the Republicans, and we have the right-wing republicans who are behind this effort to block the non wing-nut proposals.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 7:53 AM at 7:53 AM |

      He’s both right and wrong. SOME of us did indeed bitch about all our rights being lost. Bill’s a whiner, a very good whiner! He makes it funny. But it’s not funny.

      What Bill fails to do is place blame squarely where it belongs, on the baby boomers! MY generation! The generation that lost this country to the corporate fascists! The ME generation! The DINKS, double income no kids crowd. The greed is good folks!

      Bill blames the unskilled slobs, the poor folks, the working slobs who like guns and realize their importance. But why NOT go after the professional crowd! The lawyers, the professors, newspaper reporters, the movers and shakers who could really DO something about these encroachments? He doesn’t. He sticks to the easy targets, the poor slobs who like guns. And for that, Bill’s a coward.

      Problem is that for every Raplh Nader, there are a HUNDRED thousand rob natalsons!, little rightwing pukes who’ve sold their souls long ago to work in rightwing think tanks.

      The deck is stacked. There will NEVER be any effective pushback against such violations of our rights because the folks that could really do it won’t! And the kids in OWS are simply to easy to arrest, beat up, and pepper spray.

      Real defense means real risk to one’s person. And there just ain’t many heroes left out there in America. When Ralph dies, so dies the army of one of the left.

      This nation died for lack of courage and conviction, not from gun violence.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 2:04 PM at 2:04 PM |

        p.s. And the REAL problem I have with Maher’s comments are, why the HELL doesn’t he go after all the nazis ENFORCING this unconstituional shit?! Why doesn’t screw up his courage and CALL them cops at the “saftey checks” the nazis they are? OR the folks doing the wiretaps, etc.? For you see, the average joe sixpack can ONLY protect his guns! And I don’t blame him. But he canNOT effectively stop the saftey check shit, or the wiretaps, etc. One man against the cops usually loses.

        But Maher enjoys using a broad brush. He loves to beat up the little guy conerned about guns. If he really wanted to show us his nuts, he’d go after the perps of this shit!

        Now, some sheriffs have already said that they will not enforce unconstitutional measures, and they are heroes. Why aren’t OTHER nazis doing the same? You see, when you gotta feed your kids, you’ll willingly march innocents to the gas chambers. Happens every time, although there were many, many cases of Germans doing otherwise.

        And let’s face it. When COPS break the law, there IS no law. And that’s where we’re at. Anyone who’s never been abused by a cop is a damn lucky person, and more than likely white. But ask any black dude, Indian, or Arab. Jeebus, I’ve had many friends who been framed by cops for drugs at concerts, etc. And the record of cops framing black kids for drugs is horrendous! Read Incaceration Nation.

        I myself have been falsly issued citations. Hell, the cop lied right to my face! Guess may summer tan was a leetle too dark for the asshole. That one nearly got very ugly very quick! It happens all the time. Cops break the law. Cops lie. Cops are unnaccountable.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 2:11 PM at 2:11 PM |

          Suggested listening:


          Who KNOWS how many black kids have ended up in the prison system because of corrupt cops.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 2:32 PM at 2:32 PM |

            What ya gonna do when they start planting GUNS instead of drugs?! Hell, I don’t even KNOW off hand how many guns I own! Now, if I forget to register one, will I be a felon!

            I’m serious. One day, I decided that I’d better get all the serial numbers off my guns in case I get robbed. So, I sat down to do just that. But every time I thought I was done, aNOTHER gun popped up in my head! I like guns. I buy and sell them and shoot them. So, I forget at any one time just how many I have. Some are keepers, and some are traders. And some I sell because I want a different one. Are we ALL to be felons now, ms. feintstein? mr. biden? mr shumer?, simply because you folks hate guns??

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 2:41 PM at 2:41 PM |

              “Oooh, gun owner! What we got here? Now you’re facing aNOTHER charge!”


              Just the facts, mam.

              • Seems to me that you got a problem with cops, not gun control advocates. Of course, if guns or gun owners were registered, and all transfer of firearms were tracked, cops wouldn’t be able to plant firearms, would they? Unless they got them illegally, and even then, the innocent citizen would have grounds for defense they currently don’t. Could it be that you’re actually arguing against yourself, Larry?

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 4:29 PM at 4:29 PM |

                  “Seems to me that you got a problem with cops, not gun control advocates.”

                  What precludes a problem with both? What am I missing?

                  WHO would be enforcing gun laws, or will it all be voluntary?

                  Guess I just don’t understand what you’re implying.

                  But HEY, glad you love cops. Glad to hear that they can do no wrong.

                • Don’t build Straw Men with me, Larry. You know they don’t work.

                  If gun control laws are rules of commerce, then I can think of at least a dozen agencies that would enforce them, completely removed from local law enforcement. As I pointed out pretty clearly, your stand against gun control efforts may well be self-contradictory regarding your stand against law enforcement overreach. That would, your word, “preclude” having a problem with what serves you and what doesn’t, not that it will change what you bitch about, regardless.

                  I didn’t imply anything, Larry. That would be your schtick. I stated my peace pretty clearly. You don’t like the power of cops, and you fail to recognize how better gun regulation might work to your benefit, given your distrust of cops. That reads like your personal problem to me. It certainly doesn’t read like a problem with gun control advocacy, since what most want would actually benefit legal gun owners in defense of law enforcement overreach.

                  Unless your real deep desire is to have a gun so that you can shoot a cop … (Yes, that was implication.)

          • ’98 study on guns in homes: For every use in self defense, there were 4 accidental shootings, 7 assaults/homicides, & 11 suicide attempts.</blockquote RT @brookejarvis

            LK: my own suspicious nature supports nearly everything you say. Heavy excise taxes on the sale of any magazine or new weapon capable of holding more than seven rounds is something I can support. Older like armories should have to report their existence to county LEOs.

  13. Larry’s indentification of Diane Feinstein as a major voice for gun control got me a-Googling. I discovered, at the Vanguard News Forum, a very pro-gun site, that it’s not just Feinstein who’s out to get gun-owners. It’s a number of other prominent Jews, including Schumer, Boxer, Bloomberg, and Boxer.

    So, according to VNF, the problem isn’t just “whining liberals.” It’s Jewish whining liberals.

    Maybe they were behind 9/11 too? Gosh, can this be true?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 10:46 AM at 10:46 AM |

      Turner has LEFT the building…….OF REALITY!

      But thank you for doing my research for me. We will NEVER know who brought the buildings down, for we will never have a real investigation! Sorry, but I don’t think ANY investigation headed by recognized war criminal by the entire world AND jewish dude, henry kissassenger, would have much merit! Remember, dr. kissassenger was idiot george’s FIRST pick to head the investigation! Because kissassenger is such a respected elder statesman! (yeah right!)

      Please tell us just WHY dr. kissassenger cannot travel to any other country of the world (except izrail) without being immediately arrested for war crimes!

      Birds of a feather, dude. You see, I had some very good close Greek friends who simply REFUSED to believe that the sleazy piece of shit, spiroo agnew, wasn’t a sleazy piece of shit! I don’t know why it is, by SOME folks simply refuse to believe that their own kind can be capable of evil!

      The zionist nazi thugs, as per my previous posts, have had a great time providing arms to the rest of the racist world, most notably S. Africa. Apartheid and zionism are a perfect fit, doncha think? Facts and history are stubborn things some times. They simply won’t go away easily!

    • I’m not certain what you are attempting to get at, Turner. The Vanguard is the propaganda outlet for the National Alliance, a racist hate group, and most certainly do not speak for responsible gun owners. Could you clarify what your point is?

      • I was just illustrating the maxim: when you’re in the midst of controversy, look around and see who’s on your side.

        I know what the National Alliance is. I was just tugging Larry’s beard.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 1:46 PM at 1:46 PM |

          Edward Abbey was an anti-semite?? Sheesh. And Schweitzer? And Tester? And ALL ReePube politicos in Montana? And many Dem politicos too? Give it up, dude.

          Again, guns are simply ALL of society’s problems writ large. Too many people, not enough space!

          But I must know, where the hell are you from? For you see, I have yet to meet any REAL Montanan (or westerner) who hates guns as much as you do. Did you never hunt, shoot gophers by the gazillion, or serve in the military? Study history? From WHERE do you derive your hatred of the firearm? TV?

          • Larry, I believe that Turner’s question is much more prescient than most of yours. Do you agree with the National Alliance about gun control? Because they certainly seem to agree with you. The anti-Semite part is just flavor, and Turner didn’t appear to be questioning anyone’s racist leanings, but rather pointing out that if you hold the same position as racists concerning the issue at hand (which isn’t race) then you really should be questioning why. (I’m suddenly finding it greatly amusing that the pro-second amendment manifesto of racist revolution is named “The Turner Diaries”.)

            It doesn’t strike me that Turner hates guns, at least not as much as you seem to hate out-of-staters or those who don’t possess your required level of education. What he does seem to hate is the purpose that guns are put to that hurt society, people, children. I don’t see anything wrong with that, whether I agree with his proposed solutions or not. My question for you is this: why is it so important that you do have a problem with Turner’s concerns?

            You’ve started to answer that, somewhat, by writing that gun control is a political loser in Montana, and the west. I agree. So, could you perhaps identify at what point it won’t be? The racist and religious zealots are all anti-gun-control, and you certainly don’t want them in charge. Is that accurate? The counter to them are people who are pro-women, pro-religious freedom (including freedom from religion), pro-education, pro-social welfare and quite if not most often pro-rational gun control. As you argue that people shouldn’t bring the topic up to get the other things we want, aren’t you already laying the foundation for what you don’t want? That seems pretty clear as a ‘Yes’.

            I have contended, and continue to do so, that the laws governing firearms should not be the same in New York, Chicago or LA as they are in Montana. The will of the electorates seem to say the very same thing. YET, to defend rights in Montana, 2nd amendment advocates continually bring up the fear that the most extreme of those in other places will dictate how we live, when the most extreme in this place already dictate how we live. That is a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it? I also posit that you, Larry, are supporting the very people who are clearly your enemy by establishing their wedge issue as *the* wedge issue.

            In our lifetimes, there will be no serious push for confiscation of guns. None. There are those who think a ban on ownership is a good idea, but they aren’t the ones who have the ability to actually change your life for the worse. No one is going to take your guns, not Turner or Feinstein.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 6:01 PM at 6:01 PM |

              “Larry, I believe that Turner’s question is much more prescient than most of yours. Do you agree with the National Alliance about gun control? Because they certainly seem to agree with you. The anti-Semite part is just flavor, and Turner didn’t appear to be questioning anyone’s racist leanings, but rather pointing out that if you hold the same position as racists concerning the issue at hand (which isn’t race) then you really should be questioning why.”

              No, I should not. Here, let’s conduct an experiment. Let’s you and me take a stroll down to my union hall. (Teamsters Local 2) We’ll ask the fellas if they support gun control. I can ASSURE you that they will not.

              Now, does THAT mean that they support racists? I think not. For you see the unions have done MORE than any groups that you mention to improve conditions for EVERYONE in this country, minorities included. Can I be more plain than that?

              Turner likes to pull my beard, and I like to tweak his nose.

              And yes, it’s relevant to know what his background is, for you see, I really can’t fathom it. For people who grow up in big cities, I can kinda understand their anitpathy toward guns. But for someone who is from the rural west, I don’t get it. Guns are in our blood.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 2:32 PM at 2:32 PM |

      Easy answer. Yes.

      • Where were the Gun owners when Bush & Co were passing the Patriot Act, etc?

        • Many of us, including myself and Larry, were pitching a fricking fit. That’s why I will no longer support Max Baucus. That’s where we were.

          • What I meant was where were the Tea Party Gun Rally’s at State Capitols during the Bush years?

            I was raising hell with my elected reps back then but where were the NRA etc Groups that are here now?

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 6:17 PM at 6:17 PM |

              Lynn, please read my earlier post. We are NOT all lawyers. We canNOT all bring the appropriate legal actions necessary to CHALLENGE this shit in court. We do NOT have the education, degrees, and money required to fight this shit effectively.

              But there ARE people that do have the necessary abilities to fight this shit. Where are THEY is a better question?

              BTW, if you haven’t learned by now, protest is meaningless. Totally ineffective for the most part. That’s why I gave it up years ago.

              Now, testimony in front of the Legislature is still good, for it’s the ONLY time that you get to actually confront the bastards without censorship. I enjoy that very much. AND, it can be used to great effect. The bad guys hate it, that’s why they do their best to make sure that no one testifies. They change times, room assignments, limit numbers, etc., JUST so the TRVTH never appears in public. I know. I’ve been there, done that. Many times.

    • Easy answer. No. A representative Congress and the first amendment was.

  14. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 6:31 PM at 6:31 PM |

    THE BIG DOG SPEAKS! Don’t f*ck with passion! If there were EVER a political realist to counter the turnerian/feinstieinian/fernbar folks out there, it’s the most SUCCESSFUL president this country has even seen! SOMEtimes, reality must intrude upon stupidity. The Dems and their circular firing squads must stick with GAYS instead of guns!

    Bark, big dog, BARK! And really, who can argue with a guy that get’s a hummer from a 21 yr. old and STILL stays married???? Not me!


    I rest my case!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 6:35 PM at 6:35 PM |

      A smart Dem. What the F*ck is up with that???? I dunno. Let’s shoot ourselves in the NUTS again, just for the helluva it! ‘Cause is just FEELS so damn good to lose to shitbag ReePubes all the time I guess! You see, I KNOW that it makes all the turnerian/feinstenian/fernbar folks feel just SO superior to us redneck PBR drinkers, but at SOME point you would think that their vaunted intelleeeegence would kick in!

      But alas, no. They’ll destroy the country on principle!

      Your turn, dipshit.

      • Larry, it’s unclear who you are calling a dipshit here but maybe this article captures some of what you were saying. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/15/why-am-newly-minted-member-nra/

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 8:51 PM at 8:51 PM |

        I’m calling this turner dude a dipshit.

        I came across this. I don’t know who wrote it, but I like it. My lib pals are wrong on this one, and they need to stop before they do more damage. They’re complete idiots on this issue. Clinton is absolutely right. Leave it alone or lose your ass unnecessarily. Enjoy.

        A Lesson to be Learned on the

        Anniversary of

        ‘Wounded Knee’

        December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux
        Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in
        South Dakota.

        These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents
        and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms
        “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the
        majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the
        final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were
        women and children.

        Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed; over half cut down by
        friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous
        comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed
        “National Heros” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of

        We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our
        history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is
        normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation”, or the
        historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading
        up to the massacre on the movie screen.

        Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation
        attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of
        297 people.

        Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control,
        take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment:
        The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their
        families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive

        The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and
        target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was
        drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to
        put meat on the table each night; and “target shooting” was an unheard
        of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of
        early America, and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”.

        The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and
        tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American
        citizens to be armed for defense purposes, should such tyranny rise in
        the United States.

        As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to
        lose personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times unjust bills are
        passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for
        protection”. The Patriot Act, signed into law by G.W. Bush, then
        expanded and continued by Barack Obama, is just one of many examples of
        American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for

        Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most
        likely be taken away for “our safety”.

        Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms
        legislation is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about
        something for just one minute: Evil does exist in our world. It always
        has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil
        acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing
        Abel. We cannot legislate ‘evil’ into extinction. Good people will
        abide by the law; defective people will always find a way around it.

        And another thought: Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the
        historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is
        ‘evil’ and ‘malevolence’ mostly often found? In the hands of those with

        The greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent
        human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target?
        ‘Scapegoats’ and ‘enemies’ within their own borders. but only after
        they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat.

        Ask any Native American and they will tell you it was inferior
        technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any
        Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of
        them, and they will answer, “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask
        any Jew what Hitler’s first step, prior to the mass murders of the
        Holocaust was: Confiscation of firearms from the people.

        Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists,
        and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear

        Without the Second Amendment we have NO right to defend ourselves and
        our families.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 20, 2013 8:01 AM at 8:01 AM |

          Absolutely untrue, for we have SEEN what happens when nanny nanny big government does things for our own “saftey”.

          Smoking? Nope. Raise the price so high no one can afford it, and make smokers criminals and outcasts.

          Drunk driving? Sure, it’s a problem. So let’s institute unconstitutional “safety” checks for our own saftey. HEY, it’s for our own saftey, so it’s gotta be good for us, right?

          Terrorism? SOMEone brought down the Twin Towers, but whom we’ll never know! But in the meatime, let’s relinquish ALL our remaining rights to privacy. It’s safer that way.

          A few mentally ill people commit mass murder? OK then, let’s implement ALL the restrictive gun laws we can dream up!

          Nope. Nothing’s changed. The government will continue to attack the second amendment, and average citizens will rightfully fight back! For you see, it’s wrong to criminalize an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few. That won’t fly here. This is where the people will draw a line in the sand because they can….and must.

          • I guess your on the HRA’s payroll as well as the beer companies now.

            As the back of my vest says:

            “I’m sick and tired of burying my brothers and sisters to preserve America’s right to drive stupid”

            That also applies to people and guns. i.e. the Gun Show Loophole needs to be closed to make it harder for people like these two to ever purchase a
            gun again. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/recreational-assault-weapons-fire-riddles-oh

            • Lynn, you are jousting at nonsense. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

              2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

              False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 20, 2013 11:15 AM at 11:15 AM |

              “I guess your on the HRA’s payroll as well as the beer companies now.”

              OUCH! Lynn, you know that’s not true.

              You see, twenty years ago, the kids in the small towns of Montana pretty much ALL carried rifles in the back windows of their trucks to school in order to shoot coyotes on the way home. No one thought anything of that at all. I remember when the Lege was proposing a ban on all guns on school grounds. We kinda looked at each other with bemusement wondering what the hell THAT was all about. It seemed so trivial. THAT WAS ONLY TWENTY YEARS AGO!

              And also, until recently, you could drive and drink a beer as long as you weren’t over the BAC. And suddenly, overnight, as that ReePube legislator found out, we were now all criminals!

              I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that people drive while intoxicated, nor do I think that anyone is advocating for violence in schools. But for GOD’S sake the solution must fit the risk! And the culture.

              And as far as beer goes, I believe that it predates civilization by many thousands of years. Are the do-gooders really gonna dissaude anyone from imbibing? Not me. I don’t drive drunk. And I haven’t shot anyone in a rampage. Nor have ANY law abiding folks in Montana.

              Again, I would suggest that everyone attend a gun show. You will meet the most decent, law abiding citizens I’ve ever met. They are NOT law breakers, so please don’t make them outlaws!

              • What I am Saying is there have always been laws in this country re Firearms. As Far back as I can find. Town Drunks had their weapons taken from them.

                I have been to several Gun shows, I was approached at 2 to be a Straw purchaser, which I refused. I own guns, I’m just looking for some common sense regulation of them, which until recently we have always had in this Country. The State goverments in the days Articles of Confederation
                had many restrictions on who could own a firearm.

                “7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”


  15. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | January 19, 2013 6:58 PM at 6:58 PM |

    HOLY shitOLY! We’ve gone from the circular firing squad to KICKING ourselves in the nuts! That’s an improvement so to speak, in gun control terms!


  16. From 1770’s

    There were gun laws

    “Perhaps the more important point of this law–and a reminder of how much one’s assumptions color how you read such a law–is the assumption that the law made: it considered the possession of firearms, cannon, mortars, and grenades in private homes to be not only lawful, but common enough that Boston needed to pass a law requiring them to be unloaded when not in use. This law does not sound like a strong argument against an individual right to keep and bear arms. It sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement of the idea that while there were appropriate safety regulations for keeping deadly weapons in your home, no one questioned the right of individuals to own and keep even military weapons in their own homes”


    “Liberty and law are perfectly consistent; liberty does not consist in living without all restraint; for were all men to live without restraint, as they please, there would be no liberty at all; the strongest would be master, the weakest go to the wall; right, justice, and property must give way to power, and, instead of its being a blessing, a more unhappy situation could not easily be devised unto mankind, than that every man should have it in his power to do what is right in his own eyes; well regulated liberty of individuals is the natural offspring of laws, which prudentially regulate the rights of whole communities; and as laws which take away the natural rights of men are unjust and oppressive, so all liberty which is not regulated by law is a delusive phantom, and unworthy of the glorious name.”


  17. This would be considered an “Affray” in Early America, terrorizing the people of a town or village, the local sheriff would have probably confiscated it


Comments are closed.