Never miss a post. Subscribe today.

Montana Politics

Gary Marbut Shamelessly Exploits Another Gun Tragedy

It takes a special kind of “human being” to exploit the deaths of 28 people, but Montana’s one

0000ap_world_gun_deathsman gun show Gary Marbut has always demonstrated a knack for being that kind of special individual. In an interview with the Missoulian’s Gwen Florio, he suggests that an appropriate responses to the latest senseless tragedy in our gun-crazed culture would be to relax restrictions on gun ownership and arm teachers.

Marbut said Tuesday that three issues require focus in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre: Perspective.  Armed teachers.  And gun-free zones.

He’s strongly in favor of the first two, and just as vehemently opposed to the last.

In terms of perspective, he likened the odds of a child being injured by “an insane active shooter” to being hit by lightning.  In 2011, 240 people were injured by lightning and 39 died, according to the National Weather Service.

Gun violence is hardly rare in the United States. Between 2001 and 2010, 270,000 people have been shot and killed in the United States. 270,000 in a decade.

The U.S. is a tragic outlier, facing much higher rates of lethal violence than other developed nations:

Roseanna Ander, executive director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the U.S. is an outlier in lethal violence among developed countries.  Other countries have similar rates of rape and battery, Ander said, but because so much American violence includes guns, the rate of death is much higher.

Marbut’s casual dismissal of gun violence is matched by his callous willingness to exploit tragedy.  One day after the Aurora  shootings, Mr. Marbut smeared police officers who risk their lives to protect us while fantasizing that more guns will reduce violence in society.  Closer to home, back in 2009, Mr. Marbut dishonestly exploited the 2009 murder in Glasgow to further his agenda.

His agenda is unfettered access to any kind of weapon by any kind of owner, no matter the consequences.

Even the National Rifle Association has had the decency to remain silent after the events in Newtown. The National Rifle Association. But not Gary Marbut, who not only nonsensically is calling for easier access to weapons, but who fantasizes a heroic role for himself:

“I wish I could’ve been there.  If I had been there, it would have been one (victim) and done.”

Why the Montana media continue to pay attention to Mr. Marbut escapes me. He represents an extremist fringe and almost no one else.

With families still burying their dead, can Mr. Marbut please just shut the hell up?

Update: I seem to have been linked on some sort of a gun enthusiast/9-11 Truther web forum because of this post.  I just want you to know that I will be off at work today and some of your responses may be delayed by the automatic moderation system.  I can’t review your comments until the afternoon.  Please understand that this is not a UN conspiracy.  Please stop e-mailing my work account if your comment is delayed.  I promise I will get to it later.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba has been writing about Montana politics since 2005 and teaching high school English since 2000. He's a former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • I love how you commies twist things around. Don, do you REALLY want to save children? If so, stop abortion. But no, you NEVER post these numbers. Arm the teachers and you would not have any more dead children. Better yet, homeschool.
    Gestational Age Percentage Yearly Total
    Less than 9 weeks 61.8% 749,232
    9-10 weeks 17.1% 207,312
    11-12 weeks 9.1% 110,324
    13-15 weeks 6.6% 80,015
    16-20 weeks 3.8% 46,069
    21+ weeks 1.5% 18,185

    • Right on Richard, such a good point. The fringe left can never get enough of killing freedom liberty and unborn babies. Save the whales but kill the innocents. We should outlaw scissors since abortionists kill more innocents with them than thugs kill with guns – by far. Yet no nation was ever made free by arming people with scissors. Lets see what are guns good for? Nothing – except – freedom from tyranny, ending slavery, ending Naziism & Fascism, protecting hearth & home … Oh well I guess there are a few useful things that have been accomplished with them. But “if we out-law them we will stop violence”. Great idea, next we should outlaw heroin, cocaine & meth to keep them away from people. I wonder which one Mr. Pogreba is using? Mr. Marbut has done so much for Montanan & Montanans over the years. I suspect the Missoulian contacted him for his comments since people want to know what he has to say. I wonder what Mr. Pogreba has done for Montana lately and why so few want to hear his viewpoint?

    • I agree – home-schooling is best, rather than our public schools system – turned communist school system !! Teach your children our true American heritage and love for our freedom and liberty, not the current mind control and propaganda they currently teach.

  • Actually, those in the mainstream media are the ones who are shamelessly exploiting this tragedy for their own agenda.

    Otherwise, why do they focus on this so much – what can we do? How can we avoid this? Oh, how horrible! We can’t let THIS happen again! (softening us up for gun control and all sorts of other controls). Before Totalitarian governments can completely take over, they must first take away the people’s rights to arm themselves.

    And yet, do you hear the mainstream media tell the public about the thousands of innocent children killed in the Middle East from drone attacks and collateral damage? Do we see pictures of these dead children and innocent civilians? Nope, they want the wars going.

    Totalitarian governments like to engage in wars of aggression abroad while controlling and enslaving their citizens at home. And they need to use the mainstream media as their prostitute mouthpiece.

  • This is not journalism. This is ignorant ranting, irregardless if the claims made have any merit, and regardless of the political orientation of the principals of this commentary. And this by a present-day teacher?

    • You lost me at the sentence that used “irregardless” and “regardless” as synonyms. That seems syntactically problematic. You might also try a fact somewhere in your argument.

      • Actually Sir, the term ‘irregardless’ is a common regional slang from the early 1900s in the Pacific Northwest. And yes it is true it is not in Websters Dictionary. I know due to having moved to the midwest where people who base conversational value solely on grammar continually called me on the use. I picked up the use of it from my grandmother who was born in 1900 and was also a school teacher by profession and other family members of her generational group.

        Now back to the subject at hand, I read the article about Gary Marbut (the original upon which you commented) and studied the full context which was given in it. You sir cherry-picked it. You missed the part about:

        QUOTE – Marbut said such zones defy logic, requiring the belief that “some madman who will ignore the most profound prohibition for any society, the prohibition against taking innocent life … somebody who has crossed all those stark lines would get to the edge of a gun-free zone and think to himself, ‘They have a policy against guns here, so I’d better go home and play computer games.’ ”

        “Anyone who believes that,” Marbut added, “needs help.” END QUOTE.

        Kudos to Bodhi Mom for being awake, aware, and well spoken. All three triadic components in Excellence. As a reader of great volumes of information, I am so tired of listening to proponents of ignorance in the mainstream. Speaking of which Sir, whilst you were denigrating Bodhi Mom where was your mention of the shooter’s Father being an employee of General Electric and that he was scheduled to testify on the Libor Scandal, just as the movie theater shooter’s father was? Where in all this is due justice for these children when in depth investigation and a broader scope of mind is necessary to see the forest for the trees? No, it is easier to play tyrant and go after gun culture with further restrictions expecting a different outcome when you’ve already done that and all with any ounce of intelligence can see it is not the answer. You could not pay me enough to be an unarmed teacher in a school where I could be a sitting duck amid children whose welfare I would be responsible for. That is the definition of shear idiocy in my book.

        Montana Homeschooler – practicing the celtic concept of Excellence.

        • You know that stuff about the libor connection is just an internet hoax right? Do you get all your information about current events from chain email forwards?

          • My information came from research articles I seen published on the issues and questions. How about your information? I would like to hear more on the subject in detail and such accusations regarding an association seems to me should be treated with utmost importance considering the ramifications if true. I am quoting information read from some of the following sources which pointed to LIBOR:,,,, the research efforts and observations of one John DiNardo, Gunther Russbacher, the, and a wide variety of others. The information on LIBOR is scattered across the grid. You can’t just point to one source and say here it all is nice and neat!

            • None of those sources implicate Peter Lanza in the Libor scandal, which is the point that Jack was making.

              Since you consider yourself a woman “for being awake, aware, and well spoken,” I’d recommend not using irregardless (and suggest conjugating your verbs correctly) in the presence of company. I’d also recommend doing your research before you claim to have done it, because you’re not the only one with access to the internet and conspiratorial news sources.

          • Jack – this research is sound and cannot be debunked, its all over the news (legitimate news, that is) for crying out loud. Researched from here to the U.K. by real research investigators. Sorry, bubba, your “disqualifier” won’t work here.

            These issues are not simple, by any means. There is a anti-gun agenda here, and it will rob us all of our God-given freedoms and liberty. This is not something that we have to beg the state for – get it ? It is a God-given, natural right for every American to be able to defend ones self against mayhem, criminals, and tyranny.

            • “God-given, natural right for every American”

              Did God check everyone’s birth certificate before just giving out rights like that? He could accidentally give some rights to Kenyans. Or Mexicans. Like the right not to get shot with a legally purchased American Semi-Auto Rifle.

        • Remind your adversaries, “regardless” and “irregardless” have usage as noun, adjective, and adverb. Let them wrestle with it.

    • I guess you’re not an English teacher, eh ? Probably one of those teachers with a communist education; a NON-American education.

  • In the U.S. this exemplifies the problems we have with corruption at the highest levels. More often than not, these “crazed murderers” have been either on pharmaceutical drugs or a psychiatrists care, or both !!! What does that tell you ? The second thing, is the insanity from the U.N. to our illegal president about communist control and gun control.

    I don’t know about you, but our government ROUTINELY slaughters thousands of innocents under some facade of “democracy or peace” – all lies. We have the 2nd Amendment for a reason; here is why:

    Thank you Gary, for all you do, as well as all the other American “Sheepdogs “.

      • The only slippery slope here is that of governance gone rogue. Doc Art has a valid point about the corruption. We all know what rolls down hill. What you are seeing here per your ‘update’ is not having been listed on any gun enthusiast site or whatever. It is the great awakening. We have been quietly observing the hi-jinx now for more than a decade and we’ve had enough. The culmination of convenient lies paired with corruption and abrogated responsibility has fostered a public incompetency at all levels. That tunnel vision is most distinct among those who gravitate toward public policy where bridles and blinders are the rule now rather than the exception. A competent adult does not wait until after a disaster happens to improve personal conduct and capacity. No a competent adult is fully versed in the broadest situational landscape and conducts himself accordingly. Speaking truth to power is not a right it is an obligation. And it is the requirement of governance and policy to adapt and improve in recognition of truth. It is the absence of this adaptation and improvement for which the 2nd amendment is reserved. There is no nation under the Constitution; no citizenry competent and with power over governance and bureaucratic institutions whether it is of the system or of the mind without the stalwart capacity insured by the 2nd Amendment. The proximity of the UN Treaty is a clear and present danger to this capacity and therefore to the Constitutional Republic. This is the inherent danger created by the calls for greater gun restriction by the uninformed sectors of the public. We are not the complacent citizenry of the Weimar Republic who stood idly by as their neighbors were carted off to camps in the name of security for they had already been stripped of their capacity to prevent it. I dare say Doc Art would agree with me that the protection of the 2nd Amendment is paramount despite this horrific slaughter of children due to the simple fact that no one in their right mind can say of the slaughter in Germany and so many other places which began their nationhood sound only to evolve into tyranny, that “it can’t happen here.” This is seeing the Forest for the Trees. Reason enough for speaking when one ought.

        • Be informed: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks – NYTimes Breaking News Wednesday Dec 19. There is more to this than the tragedy. Are you well versed in the content of the various Presidential Directives? How about Continuity of Governance documents? It might surprise you to discover how governance works these days and what all occurs in the name of creating policy which is then pushed into legislation. Ignorance is not bliss. It is a plan or a conscription masquerading as a disaster, looking for a place to happen.

        • Why I Carry a Gun

          I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to KEEP FROM BEING KILLED.
          I don’t carry a gun to scare people. ….I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

          I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world to freedom, life, and liberty.

          I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. …I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

          I don’t carry a gun because I hate my country. I carry a gun because I understand and have experienced the limitations and abuses of government.

          I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. …I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

          I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere, tomorrow afternoon.

          I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. …I carry a gun because, when I die and go to Heaven, it will be with the knowledge that I was a “Sheepdog”, who helped protect innocent lives.

          I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

          I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. …I carry a gun because, unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

          I don’t carry a gun because I love it…. I carry a gun because I love life, and the people who make it meaningful to me.

  • Dear Mr. Pogreba,

    Do you even read your own references? Wait, your references are you! Mr. Marbut never advocated relaxed gun ownership restrictions, though he did advocate for willing (and able) teachers being able to carry. He didn’t smear police in the Glasgow shooting, nor did he with Aurora police. He said police cannot protect you as they are usually not present in time. I wouldn’t include references that prove your diatribes false. Must you create such a straw man out of Mr. Marbut? It seems ridiculous if his ideas are so poor and so fringe and you are as well-read and as good a debater as you style yourself. Someone with real ammo doesn’t fire blanks! Back to Peyton Place. By the way, I am one of Marbut’s many minions spread across the state who take pride in the many MSSA legislative accomplishments.

    • Reading is a lifelong skill:

      As some gun rights advocates call for increased firearms control, and others clam up entirely, Marbut is the go-to guy for quotes about maintaining the status quo or – better yet, he’d say – loosening gun regulations.

      No, he lied about what happened in Glasgow and smeared the police in Colorado.

      Thanks for visiting.

      • Don, The police in Colorado, as in Newton, CT, are complicit with their lies and hidden agendas perpetrated by TPTB. Plain as the nose on your face. Government = Lies

          • You might be interested in IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG & LIES THE GOVERNMENT TOLD YOU, both by Judge Andrew Napolitano. Follow that with GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL: The Criminalization of Almost Everything by Healy. Also, within my right arm’s reach is another to curl your pubLic hair, THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free minds. My left arm has access to the progressive “mud” that includes Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS, actions you see practiced daily on innocent citizens by Obama and his criminal mob to steal your social, economic and political assets while, at the same time, destroying the Constitution and other Founding Instruments.

      • Truly, we can agree that “reading is a lifelong skill.” In addition, interpretation is both a skill and an art form. Whitman may have been the one to point out that (paraphrased) “if the interpretation is too easy, the material was not worth the writing.” Many famous authors write to progressively higher skill levels to sharpen their abilities and keep boredom at bay. Failing to read at increasing levels of difficulty is tatamount to mental bankruptcy. Certainly not something attractive to ideologues and politicians with their eternal desire to bamboozle the masses and steal from Joe 6-Pack. My death bed wish would be to assign politicians a paragraph from the 20th Century classic, Finnigan’s Wake, that they must master before uttering another word. Imagine the blessed silence wrought of ignorance!

          • Absolutely. Mixed it up with the name of your favorite pub. At times fingers get out of sync. with intent.

            Now you can go back to “regardless” and “irregardless” to correctly explain their usage as noun, adjective, and adverb. It is more exciting. Besides, that is what you do.

            Careful now, the next one may be an intentional rabid hole. I left one in the above paragraph for you to fondle. It’s a freebie.

      • Don, if you are in need of a quote, do you remember this letter:

        Dear Attorney General Holder:

        This letter is in regards to your recent comments suggesting the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons. We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership.

        Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue. Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment.

        We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners. We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect. In the light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.

        U.S. Senator Max Baucus
        U.S. Senator Jon Tester

        Another quote is from Harry Reid’s website.

  • Gary Marbut is a solid, thoughtful, and honorable man, unlike the smug, self-righteous, and disingenuous author of this blog. It has been those who wish to restrict guns and push that agenda who have been dancing in the blood of innocents and using this tragedy to promote their political agenda – as they always do. Marbut is merely unwilling to allow them to advance their idiotic and unconstitutional ideas unchallenged. The claim that Marbut smeared the police after Aurora is an outright lie. I can read. His statement is respectful and accurate. I encourage everyone to follow the link and read it for themselves. The claim that Marbut lied about the Glasgow shooting is a blatant distortion. He clearly stated his uncertainty about the information referenced while discussing concern about how the media would handle it. I suspect this blogger gets more traffic when he attacks Marbut than he gets for his other idiotic ramblings, but only because Marbut mentions the attacks and his readers stop by to see for themselves – as I did. We should probably just ignore him and leave him to babble to himself.

    • Actually, I certainly didn’t write this piece to gain traffic. This is the first time I have received anything like a response about Mr. Marbut. My suspicion is that someone posted a link to a 9/11 truther-gun conspiracy forum or something this time.

      If you can honestly read what Mr. Marbut said about the police after Aurora as anything but a smear of their integrity or bravery, I don’t think we’ll find any common ground.

      As for the Glasgow shooting, don’t take my word for it. Ask the person Marbut told falsehoods about. (

  • Dear sir,

    Did you know it’s already illegal to bring a firearm to a school? And it’s already illegal for a mentally ill person to obtain a firearm. And it’s already illegal to shoot people. Yet Sandy Hook happened. How would another layer of illeglity made any difference in this case?

    • Dear Mr. Progrema,

      I understand you’re busy today, and I understand your world view is what it is, so I don’t expect ti be able to persuade of anything. But I’m still interested in your views on how additional layers of illegality might have changed the results at Sandy Hook.

      Respectfully, etc.


      • I am not, Don, but to ask for a ban on semi-automatic AR rifles seems entirely reasonable, again.

        I believe that since guns and violence are so ingrained in our society, that there’s not much more we can do with guns, but there is a whole lot we need to do for mental health in this country. We need to fund it and destigmatize it. I really believe that in the long-term, that would help decrease gun violence, but it won’t solve it.

        • The reason such a ban is not “reasonable” is two-fold. First, it is silly to imagine that if someone is will to violate the laws that prohibit him from taking a gun to a school, obtaining a gun when he is mentally ill, and shooting other people, that a law that banned AR style semi-automatic rifles would have given him any pause. Are we expected to believe that when he ignored all the other laws he violated, that this one would have made any difference. If so, on what basis are we supposed to believe it.

          Second, AR rifles are highly effective for self-defense. Cops are taught and trained, for example, if they are attacked by armed assailants, they should use their pistols to fight their way to their rifles. For better or worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that self-defense is a fundamental right of all human beings under the U.S. Constitution. (I happen to agree with them.) So are we to ban fundamental rights because it “seems reasonable” to do so? Decided cases usually point to actual, concreate reasons to allow infringement upon fundamental Constitutional rights. I think you should too.

          I appreciate learning your opinion. I am hoping you might offer some facts and logic to back them. Would you like to try again?

          • Funny how cops in other countries don’t have to use their pistols to fight to their rifles, they rarely have to use their pistols at all. Criminals won’t fail to buy AR-15s because they are illegal, they will fail to buy them because they won’t be for sale. Very dedicated criminals will still be able to go get them, of course, but they will be slowed, and the process of buying themselves illegal guns will give law enforcement another chance to catch them.

              • I didn’t say they don’t use guns. I said they rarely do. British, Chinese, and Norwegian police do not regularly carry guns, and all European and Japanese forces fire them far less often. Police in the US have fatally shot nearly 10,000 people since 1980. The prevalence of guns in the US not only means more innocent people and cops get shot – it means cops far more frequently feel the need to shoot civilians, some of whom are criminal, others who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, you know, if they took away our guns, we might have fewer rights.

                • OK. So in no countries do the cops not use guns. We are in agreement, for once.

                  Interestingly, you just gave me a list of places where they have taken away all civilian guns. The murder rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000, the Chinese claim its 1.0 (not including presumably when they kill their own dissidents) and Norway is .6. In other words, there are no guns in any of those places, and yet their murder rate is above zero.

                  Meanwhile the CDC reports non-gun homicide in the U.S. is 1.8.
         So even if you could blink your eyes and make all guns disappear from the U.S., we’d still have a substantially higher homicide rate than the countries you name (3 times as great as Norway, for example). Its hard to imagine, moreover, that the gun homicides we have would not happen at all “but for” guns, even if one were to concede the rate in the absence of all guns might be slighly lower than 5.5 (which is the 2009 homicide rate in the US).

                  So something is at work here besides merely the presence of guns. What is it? And if we there is such a high non-gun muder rate here regardless of the availabilty of guns, isn’t that an even stronger argument for letting me defend myself with my own gun? With no guns whatsoever, am I not then defensless?

                • Quentin: As I said below, no one wants to take away all guns, even if they could do so with the blink of an eye.

                  In every country the cops have the ability to call on back up with guns, but in very few countries to cops shoot nearly as many people as they do in the US, hence my statement ‘cops rarely use their pistols at all’.

                  Most of what you say that follows is nonsense. Of course, there is crime, even serious crime, in the absence of guns. No one suggested otherwise. But your own statistics show that the US has something like five times the murder rate of the any of those other nations. How does that square with your theory that more guns equals less crime?

                  You are arguing with ghosts, or perhaps with Nancy Pelosi . No one on this blog supports doing away with guns or the second amendment; we’re all Montanans, for crying out loud. But what Don and Jesse and Pete and I don’t buy for one second is this idea that more guns causes less crime. The US has more privately owned guns than any other country, and yet we have more killings than most. Countries with far fewer guns have far lower rates of homicide. In the face of that, how can you or Gary argue that more guns will cause less crime? It’s hypothetically a possibility, so I guess I can’t say with certainty it wouldn’t happen, but it’s never happened in the real world.

                • The problem you have to face Wolf is the facts. The murder rate in the U.S. is lower than its been for years, and going down. Meanwhile personal gun ownership has sky rocketed in the last decade, particularly in the last 8 years. Now you can compare us with other countries if you wish, but you have to adjust for a lot of other factors. Take for example Norway. No drugs or illegal aliens coming across their southern border, no melting pot, no urban ghettos, no white underclass. Their murder rate has nothing to do with guns. They could all be armed to the teeth, like the Swiss, and there’d still be no crime there, like Switzerland.

                  But you can compare the U.S. today with the U.S. of 20 years ago, as I’ve done elsewhere on this blog. Guns are way up, and violent crime is down. Real world. Go figure.

                • In 1993, US gun ownership was around 52%, and the murder rate was 9.5 out of 100,000. In 2007, it was approximately 43%, and the murder rate was 5.9 out of 100,000.

                  See? I can cherry pick data too. Based on the years I picked, it would seem that more guns lead to more crime. It doesn’t prove anything, of course. Twenty years ago, we had a higher gun ownership rate than we have now, and a higher crime rate. That alone is no evidence that the two are connected, but if you insist there is a correlation, then the most reasonable interpretation of the data suggests that there a positive correlation between gun ownership and crime.

                  My sources, by the way.



                • Do I really have to do this again? My sources are Gallup and the FBI. Here goes.

                  Forty-seven percent of American adults in 2011 report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% in 2010 and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993,

                  ?In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
                  ?When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.
                  ?There were an estimated 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011.
                  ?Aggravated assaults accounted for the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement at 62.4 percent. Robbery comprised 29.4 percent of violent crimes, forcible rape accounted for 6.9 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2011.
                  ?Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults.

                  Tally ho.

                • “the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, ”

                  Yes, and 1993 was the last time gun ownership was above fifty percent, and the highest the homicide rate has been in recent memory. Since gun ownership slipped below half, the homicide rate has fallen 30%. You’re only looking back a few years; look back a few decades and you’ll see a more accurate trend.

  • Don,

    Your piece at about Gary Marbut is shameful composition.

    You describe yourself by saying, “Much of his [your] writing happens late at night and he is [you are] unlikely to respond to your [our] comments during the day. Have you ever been tested for primary insomnia? Many will question your severe lack of logic so here is something to help you so you can sit the heck down and only speak when told to:

    You outrageously distort what Mr. Marbut has ever said or written about the Glasgow shooting … and for this disingenuous attack, your second post ought to be an apology to Mr. Marbut saying that because of your severe lack of sleep, you usually cannot make sense out of average subjects that you know nothing about.

    To a posted comment on the link above you say, “You lost me at the sentence that used “irregardless” and “regardless” as synonyms. That seems syntactically problematic. You might also try a fact somewhere in your argument.” And to another comment about the reason we have a 2nd Amendment, you reply: “There’s a logical fallacy you might want to look into. It’s called a “slippery slope.””

    In both cases, you think you are really clever by sarcastically twisting words, but you are sadly an unpatriotic school teacher who isn’t even teaching our children some of the most important values they need. If you got out in the world more often, out from behind your 19th-century desk, you would realize that you are only attacking the lack of logic that prevails inside your head.

    Not that you might care about being shameful, but if you really wondered about why you quote Helena as being the best place in the world, it is partly because the land you live on is governed by a great Constitution and a Bill of Rights including that Second Amendment. In your musings, I highly suggest you polish your head and read-up on these documents, because if we didn’t have them, or if we continue to have lame-duck people like yourself continue to advocate against them, then it is not very likely in a couple of years that you will be saying you want to stay in Helena much longer.

    And by the way, educate yourself about a prominent police Lt. Colonel saying America is in a “state of denial” about the need to protect children by training teachers, working alongside police to respond to violence:

    You too have a nice day.

    • You know what’s definitely not patriotic? Calling into question the patriotism of those who disagree with you. Last refuge of scoundrels, indeed.

      I highly recommend that you read some actual scholarship about the Second Amendment, not the hijacked, radical version that has been pushed for the past fifty years by the NRA and others.

      There has always been sensible restriction on gun ownership in this country. There have always been laws restricting access to the most dangerous weapons. That’s not totalitarianism; that’s common sense.

      • Don,

        My goodness, where to begin. Assuming your figure of 270,00 killed by guns in a decade is correct, it is not a number I’ve encountered before and I assume it includes gang related shootings and death by cop, which is getting completely out of control, that’s 27,000 deaths per year. Deaths by auto accidents is between 30,000 and 42,000 per year depending on the year. Death by doctor, 120,000 per year. The writer from the LA Times didn’t cite a source for his number so who knows? If you want to play the numbers game, fine, you do that but I don’t think it advances your argument and it only serves as a distraction.

        A distraction from what? you ask. The core Question. Who has power? To be more precise, political power. Moa was on to something, “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Let’s take this gun control business to its logical conclusion. Take all firearms away from “civilians,” something the UN has repeatedly advocated. Who is left with all of those guns? (power) Governments and people who disregard gun laws. Feel safe now? If you do I suggest you do some reading from your nearest history book. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” If you feel safe in the arms of government (or criminals) then by all means rock-a-by baby. History disagrees. “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” Sound familiar? Another tid bit from George Washington.

        As to your reference to “actual scholarship about the 2nd amendment,” how about this: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson. And this: The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
        that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
        of the press. Thomas Jefferson. And this: The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams. And this: Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don’t. – Anonymous. And finally: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson. Had enough?

        My right to defend myself against any aggressor comes from the creator. If you have trouble with that then substitute creator for something like “my presence here” or like, you know, the universe. Restrict that right and you restrict my right to life. If you actually believe it’s ok to restrict my right to life I’ve got a problem with that.

        Finally, I wish you peace. It is my hope that when the present political situation plays itself out to its inevitable conclusion, your gun totin’, guns, God and gold neighbors will find it their hearts to provide you with some measure of protection from the maelstrom.

        • The statistics are true. In fact, there have been over a million gun deaths in the United States in the past century. Over a million.

          No one is questioning your right to defend yourself. No one. That’s nothing more than a strawperson argument.

          • Here’s a statistic you won’t reply to like my question,56 million people were murdered by their governments in the last century after disarming the population. The statistics are true. lot’s of love Tom.

            • Was there anything different about those countries other than gun ownership? Hmm…it seems like there might have been.

              Good Lord.

              Complex Cause
              The effect is caused by a number of objects or events, of which the cause identified is only a part.

              • You still haven’t answered my question from my other post. I guess being totally unarmed with out any way to resist would only be a really tiny part of why 56 million people were exterminated by their governments. Must have been complex cause. Thank you for your edification on progressive enlightenment.

                • I’m sure your speaking from experience and if I ever have that problem I’ll know just what to do , thanks for the tip.

                • How many people have died in Somalia, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. because non-governmental entities are excessively well armed.

                • The countries you have named were all ruled by dictators. No ” none government people” were well armed except in Afghanistan . Strict gun control was enforced in those countries . Genocide occurred in Somalia, Iraq and the Congo. The populace was unarmed except in Somalia when there was no recognized government and warring factions were trying to gain power. The side with the guns ate, the side without starved. These are part of the 56 million dead. The drug cartels in Mexico are a good example of what happens when strict gun control has accomplished nothing but make the population helpless to criminals. I wanted to have true dialogue on this site, but hey just look at all the new friends I have made.

                • It’s hard to argue with someone who contradicts himself in his own arguments. All the countries were dictatorships…except for the one that didn’t have a government.

                  And non-government people were not armed except in the countries where they were armed.

                  Well done, sir. You’ve set back Western reasoning 500 years.

                • Thomas – take a look at this list (I’m going to take a long look at it when its no midnight) and tell me if you see a correlation between individual freedom and gun ownership. I see none, in either direction.


                  It’s undeniable that a totalitarian government would prefer its people unarmed, but I want you to think about this. Really think about it, because I’d like to see true dialogue on this too. People like to say that the first thing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was to limit gun ownership. But that’s not really true. The first thing they did was get their hands on a hell of a lot of weapons.

                  The 20th century is not the history of guns being used to topple dictators. It’s a history of small groups of well-armed people taking over. Sure, they thought or claimed they were using their weapons to defend against tyranny in much the same language as modern-day militias, freemen, posse comitatus, etc., use, but what they in fact did was to use weapons to INSTATE unelected tyranny far worse than they replaced.

                  Comrade Mauser you have the floor, political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the like. They too thought they were ‘Sheepdogs’, and many of them probably had good intentions. But to someone who has studied the history of the 20th century, all this talk about deadly force ‘protecting’ our rights sounds eerily familiar.

                • Don, I have enjoyed this little discussion and would agree I have probably set reasoning back 500 years. My wife would agree with you.I am truly upset with what happened in Connecticut and would like to see something done to stop all the violence. If gun bans and control would stop the violence I would not think twice about doing it. I am not sure your solution will work in the long run and have serious doubts about it . You have given me a lot to think about and maybe we could have a beer together if that is your pleasure and talk about it some day. Till next time good night.

                  Note: I can’t add a reply to this thread, but wanted to say thanks for the comment. While the argument can certainly get heated, I appreciate the suggestion here. The truth is, of course, that almost everyone wants the same goal of less violence. Despite my tendency for sharply-worded responses, I do hope we can find a real solution, too. –Don

          • @Don,

            I’m not sure what a “strawperson” argument is. I know what a strawman argument is.

            As for your stats: The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. FBI stats. If we include suicides in your figures I think it’s accurate to say most gun deaths are self inflicted. No gun? I’ll just take a pill, or there’s a rope, that looks useful. So it looks like over half of the deaths you speak of would have happened with or without a gun.

            “No one is questioning your right to defend yourself. No one.” Anyone who would restrict my right is violating it. So, let’s see, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Bidon, the MSM on and on and on are calling for “assault” weapon bans, magazine bans, etc. and from the tone of your article, you. Hardly no one.

            • Strawperson? Not to worry, Rog, it is the all- inclusive politically correct version listed in the liberal’s optionary. Lack of fealty to the leftist cause may lose a government grant or rejection of your next article in “The Class Struggle” or “Daily Worker.”

              These same individuals stumble all over themselves when asked to explain why “womanslaughter” is inappropriate while “manslaughter” is accepted. Take it from there and you find politics in the silliness. It is but a small step from there to Marbutslaughter.

              • I would under a pseudonym if I were you, too.

                Can I offer you a full time gig writing here, though? You’ve made a far better case for the absolutely disconnect from reality in the right than I have in seven years of writing here.

                Let me know if you’re interested. This stuff is comedy gold.

                • So, you want to be the straight man? Sorry, though, I don’t wish to be a reason for you to pad your expense account.

                  Reality? On the right? On the left? Mere shadows, and only apparitions of reality and the thinnist substance of a passing dream, – never touching the heart.

                  You’re a gift that keeps on giving, even when off topic on your own gig, enlisting confusing adverbs and prepositions. My G_d man, your the expert.

                • I can’t help but suspect every one of these posters was Derek Skees. He probably has a lot of time on his hands these days.

                • To accept your flattery would admit failure. I desire it not. To be licked will be followed by the scratch. Speak true.

                  It would seem we are finished with Marbut. An article only a leftist would write. It has been an interesting journey into the cloud of fanciful liberal propaganda. Like cotton candy, large, colorful and tasty, but can disappear in a single bite. Thanks for the amusement.

                • You have to think long and hard to come up with Pogreba for a pseudonym. At least Marbut goes by his real name.

  • Please expound on how he lied about the Glasgow shooting. That incident was stopped by the very thing you are ranting against, a private citizen with a handgun. The police were not there to stop it, nor was the BATFE, or any other gov’t entity. Just a real man with the mentality to do what needed to be done. Isn’t it funny how the places with the most firearms have the least crime?
    Oh, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts most of those 270,000 you referenced were killed by people, not an inanimate object. If you want to say they used a gun, then we should also talk of the thousands of people killed each year by those evil cars. By the way, those 270,000 represent 0.0009% of the population. If those figures are true, it’s hardly a drop in the bucket compared to your leftist mindset of abortion on demand.
    As Quentin just stated, more gov’t stupidity isn’t going to help.

  • Dear Pogreba, I would like to know why you haven’t chastised or even mention the fact that our own Government illegally sent thousands of firearms to the Mexican drug cartels killing over a hundred people including a U.S. border agent. The city of Chicago has the strictest gun control in the U.S. and has been named the most dangerous city in the world. Switzerland has a firearm in every home yet has a smaller murder rate with firearms than England. Answer this one question Mr.Pogreba, if guns are the cause of the shooting in Connecticut, why haven’t any murders occur at the multi gun matches that thousands of shooters participate in every year using the evil semi automatic rifles that have been in civilian’s hands since the early 1960’s> The logic or lack of from progressive s shocks me.

    • The only people who would refer to Chicago as the “most dangerous city in the world” are people who watch too much Glen Beck–and gun control in one city will do little to prevent violence when the nation around the city has almost no restrictions on gun ownership in place.

      Switzerland? See that little picture at the top of the post? It’s called a chart. Which country has the second highest rate of gun deaths in the developed world?

      Oh yeah. Switzerland.

      • Oh yeah. What parameters were involved in the study? Bite the “capsule.” Is it “sugar” or “strychnine?” “That little picture at the top of the post” may not be as correct as illustrated.

        Oh yeah!

          • Simply, do you know or are even familar with the parameters of the study, presenting the thin and questionable evidence (“that little picture at the top of the post”) you cite? Your so-called “evidence” may prove helpful or serve nefarious purpose, depending on the parameters.

            Your own words, like a foul ball, provide a deflection (in your mind) you did not see.

  • Don
    I must say that you have not shown Gary the dignity or respect to connect with your fellow man. As a friend he is sincere, as an activist he is principled and as a man he has as much character/honor as any I have ever known. Shake his hand to do business, no contract needed. If you found yourself in harms way Gary would step in front of you(yes you Don!).
    Gary’s heart felt passion to see his fellow citizens live empowered and free lives is what drives him. Who else amongst us has the strength to stand tall when most of us cower! Gary is our William Wallace and he has given most his life to protect us all!
    I ask you Don, before the next time you spit venom, meet with Gary. Talk with him as a human being, see beyond the knee-jerk response that want’s to overwhelm you and try to know Gary and open your mind to a different perspective.

    • Public figures who imagine themselves heroically intervening in school shootings and advocating senseless gun policies deserve criticism. I find it abhorrent that Mr. Marbut is so willing to exploit the tragedy in Connecticut. I’m sure, other than that, he is a fine human being.

      He’s terribly wrong about this, though.

  • Don,

    How are teachers and school children safer when self-defense is banned and there is a sign outside notifying any would-be bad actor of that fact?

    Are you aware that more violent crimes happens in many countries where guns are completely banned?

    Are you aware that we had kids taking guns to school for over a century and a half without a single school shooting?

    Are you willing to look at the connection between mass murderers and psychotropic drugs?

    Self defense is a basic human right.

    Leaving teachers and students defenseless should be a felony — and it’s certainly cruel and heartless. Give them a fighting chance. Require proper training, firearm safety certification — even training as good as law enforcement officers receive. That’s a fair expectation given the high standard of proficiency we’d desire around our children.

    I wrote my son’s principal, current teachers and past teachers that same evening after the mentally unstable kid stole his mother’s firearms, carried them illegally and committed mass murder (also illegal). I urged them to pack heat and BEGGED the principal to at least get a .45 into a safe in his office. ANY weapon, properly secured and on the property gives the people there a fighting chance they do not currently legally enjoy.


    Scott Wilson

    • Scott,

      I don’t have time to answer your comments this morning, but thanks for the reasonable tone. I think we certainly can disagree on this issue–and I hope to get back to answer your arguments later today.

      • Don,

        I’m not always as reasonable sounding on this issue. Self-defense against bad people is very important to me, and sometimes my passion gets the better of me — especially when it comes to children like my young son.

        But I know Gary Marbut personally and consider him a true friend and a genuinely good human being with a good heart. He cares about people. He especially supports women being able to protect themselves from rapists and other bad people. So when I see him seemingly maligned, I know it’s because you don’t know him as a person. If you did, you’d find him quite likeable and truly harmless and kind.


  • It’s clear the illogical reaction to this post is an attempt to preemptively destroy any reasonable consequence/goal-based discussion about gun regulation. It’s the same old song and dance.

    As if the feelings one can have toward changing our gun regulations are limited to binary categorization: Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun. This false dillema, instilled into the heads of all those with an opinion on the subject by fringe groups on both ends of the spectrum, is a mind-killer. Whenever someone says ANYTHING about changing gun regulations, the pro-gun nut appeals to their apriori dogma that:

    Anyone who wants to discuss gun regulation change is therefore Facist, Commie, Liberal etc.

    Notice that the conclusion does not follow.

    Maybe it would be helpful if the NRA could put their argument into a syllogism. It would become crystal clear that even if their premises were true, their conclusions would not follow. And also that their premises are probably not true.

    Why is that pointing to Chicago’s murder rate, and correlating that with it’s gun regulations supports the pro-gun crowd, but pointing to entire countries and correlating their murder rates with gun control does not? Empircal cherry picking? Like I said. This issue is a mind-killer.

    But really, these dogmatic views hurt most gun owners. Much like the loud minority of wackjobs in the conservative realm of politics hurt public perception, and ultimately the influential power of the vast majority of moderate conservatives. These idiots will hurt the public perception and influence of moderate gun owners.

    • Your letter contains references such as fringe groups, gun nuts wacjobs, and idiots. You don’t post your real name but call your self a moderate.

      • If someone doesn’t post their real name they cannot be a moderate?

        And again.The conclusion doesn’t follow.

        And yes, moderates can call people wackjobs.

        • I guess using insults instead of dialogue is your definition of being moderate. I wouldn’t want to use my name either if that was my strategy . Have a nice day.

  • Dear Pogreba , You didn’t answer my last question. By the way I don’t watch Glen Beck . Haven’t you ever wondered why the places in this country with the most restrictive gun laws are the highest in crime and murder. I wish people could truly have a dialogue about gun safety and crime without responsible people from both sides of the issue being threatened or demonized. I’m sure we could agree on many topics but telling someone to shut up is not trying to reach across the table for dialogue. The anti gun crowed has definitely been exploiting this tragedy, yet I haven’t heard of Gary Marbut telling anyone to shut up. Anger and hate is what causes horrible tragedy’s to occur. Have a nice day Mr.Pogreba.

  • To Mr. Pogreba and others:

    Israel suffered endless school shootings until 1973, when the government legalized and encouraged adults at schools to arm themselves — teachers, secretaries, janitors, and visiting parents. There hasn’t been a single school shooting there since.

  • From the cowgirl site

    Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers
    December 19, 2012 at 9:20 am · Reply
    Gotta run, so short post! I was SHOCKED AS HELL when I lost my SS card and had to go get a new one. When I walked in the door at the SS office, there was a freakin’ ARMED GUARD there to greet me! And the entire freakin’ building was locked up tight! It looked like the inside of a freakin’ JAIL! (not that I would know!) I couldn’t believe it! WHO in the hell is gonna shoot up the SS office?

    Here’s the deal. Even BANKS used to have a friendly, kindly old bald dude with a gun sittin’ around the lobby to deter robbers. But schools? NUTHIN’!, and that just ain’t right!

    So, here’s my proposal. Rather than allowing the mentally ill to just stroll on IN to the school and start shooting, let’s GET a nice, retired old cop or other such dude to SIT at the front door of EVERY school and greet people! I call’em a greeter with a heater! Hell, even Walfart has greeters! It’s time. It’s time to put a gun right at the front door to make the mental case stop and think, AND to give the school time to react!

    But we canNOT allow NO protection at the entrance to the schools any longer! We have NO shortage of old farts (like me) that might want to volunteer, sorta like foster grandma deal, ‘cept that this would be foster grandpa greeter with a heater!

    Look, if nothing else, it buys the school some time to lock down! So we lose the old fart, no big whoof! He died helping kids! Hell, I would volunteer in a heartbeat!

    But on this one I agree with my wacko rightwing pals. It’s time to do sumthin’. I think the greeter with a heater program would be a good place to start!

    Let’s just do it!

    OK, gotta run. Let the comments begin!

    p.s. It’s just the world we live in, folks. The old timers in Japan volunteered to go in and clean up the nuke reactor since they were old anyway. They didn’t want the young folks dying. Time for the boomers to FINALLY do sumthin’ with their sorry asses!

  • Gary was right on ! He has said for years that current stste and federal “no gun areas” have resulted in schools, hospitals, etc, being “killing zones” and vulnerable to deranged individuals bent on inflicting maximum casualities.

    These massacures are mental health issues not gun control issues. The school did everything possible to prevent what happened, except that “no one inside was armed”!
    You liberals wont be satisfied until we are all disarmed and at the mercy of deranged
    criminals.! Gary was right on !

  • You might try reading Thomas Sowell’s editorial in today’s Missoulian sir, as he states irrefutable facts that make a great deal of sense.

      • Never a lover of facts, Sowell twists, distorts and outright lies, again. Nothing he writes can be taken seriously and the Missoulian does its readers a great disservice running his crap (but then I hear he’s one of the cheapest syndicated columnists that a newspaper can buy – so there’s that).

        • I’d be interested in learning which facts Dr. Sowell sets forth you believe are false, your source of information, and any alternative sources of information which you believe are more accurate regarding Mr. Sowell’s facts than he is. For example, do you contend that Washington D.C. has a low murder rate? Perhaps you think it has lax gun control laws? Any specifics you might offer would be welcome.

          • Well, for starters, Sowell states: “Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates.” Just go to the chart at the top of this post which shows that Switzerland has the second highest gun death rate (only the U.S. has a higher rate). Germany isn’t even on the list.

            And I haven’t even started researching his other claims.

              • We’re talking death by guns here, not homicide rates. Big difference. Switzerland’s is 3.5 per 100,000 and Germany’s is 1.1.

                • Wrong again. Dr. Sowell said the “murder rate” was higher in Germany even though gun ownership is 1/3 of Switzerland’s. You might disagree with Dr. Sowell that we should be “talking death by guns here” (I don’t), but again, you failed to refute his facts. Strike two.

                  By the way, I note you fail to cite us to your source for your statement of fact. I’d be interested in learning why.

                • Just like Sowell, you’re the one playing fast and loose with the facts. The conversation is about gun deaths, not homicide rates. Homicide rates can be attributed to so many things. Gun deaths are attributable to guns. Switzerland has more guns than Germany and more gun deaths. It’s really pretty simple, Quentin. As for sources, again, look at the chart at the top of this post or go here:


                • Again, wrong. Sandy Hook was about homicide. It was no accident, suicide or some other kind of “gun related death.” It was homicide. So the topic of conversation is “homicide and guns,” as it should be.

                  The facts on this point are indeed as Dr. Sowell reports them, and you have failed in three attempts to refute them. So are there any other facts reported by Dr. Sowell which you would like to attempt to refute? I’ll check back in a day or two to see how well you’ve done. Your first effort was rather inauspicious, but people do generally tend to improve with practice.

                • The manner (done by many police departments) in which anti-gun zealots accumulate gun statistics has many flaws. One glaring device is to call a death by other means “gun-related” if their happens to be a gun locked in a safe on the property, having nothing to do with the demise. We need to clean up skewed statistics before meaningful discussion can ensue.

                • The reason Sowell uses the words “homicide” and “murder” instead of gun deaths is because it would screw up his whole premise if he actually used gun death statistics. The guy is the king of the bait and switch.

                  The Sowell column is as full of misrepresentations as MTnman above comment. He claims gun statistics are false because cops say it’s “gun related” when their happens to be a gun in a safe during a crime. I’d love to see an example of that.

                • Why would a doctor tell someone their father died of cirrhosis of the liver…………..yet the death certificate attribute the cause of death to smoking tobacco?

                  I saw it happen. True story.

                  Statistics anyone?

  • Recently I attended classes at Red Rocks Community College in Lakewood, Colorado.
    In the manual they give to students, they allow and encourage students with CCW permits to bring their concealed weapons to school. In a class of 12, 5 students carried.

    This is what is needed. Since normal, law abiding citizens are the SHEEPDOGS of our society, we need more – here’s why. As long as the government criminals are run by the pharmaceutical criminals, they will be making “crazy people” to carry out their agenda of a New World Order (a term coined by G.H.W. Bush back in ’92).

    As such, until we can fix one major problem in this country ( a corrupted government) then we must do we we have to, in order to protect ourselves and our loved, in spite of the government. Also, the father’s of both the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting and the one in Newton, CT we to BOTH testify against LIPOR, Inc. about money laundering fraud !

    So, there is much more to this than simply being intelligently pro-2nd Amendment (and thus) pro-Constitution, than being an irrational reactive NeoCon supporter who insanely advocates more gun control (which has been proven to NOT work). Wake up folks !

    • If Romney had been elected would we have fixed “one major problem in this country ( a corrupted government)”? Just asking

  • Don,

    You don’t know Gary Marbut. All you know is what you read through the prism of mainstream “journalism” . I do know Gary Marbut, which is why we are a corporate Gold sponsor of him and MTSSA. Thank God for Gary! (Yes, I said God). I’ve never seen someone work so hard while asking so little in return. Gary gives of himself so selflessly and tirelessly in fighting for our rights in Helena. He is a man of action. He is a man of his word, and is very honorable.

    I also take issue with your statement “Why the Montana media continue to pay attention to Mr. Marbut escapes me. He represents an extremist fringe and almost no one else.”

    Excuse me, but how does somebody who represents an “extremist fringe” write 58 bills that get passed into law in this state? Does that mean we have an “extremist fringe” legislature and “extremist fringe” executive branch also? They are the ones that turned the bills into laws. Gary wrote the book on gun laws in Montana that apply to all one million citizens of this state. Sounds pretty mainstream to me, at least for Montana. Maybe that’s one reason why the “Montana media” pay attention to him?


    • All y’all saying that we need guns to protect our freedom from tyranny:

      The country with the lowest proportion of private gun ownership the last year for which statistics are available was Tunisia. You’ll recall Tunisia made the news lately for being the first state in the Arab Spring to overthrow their tyrannical government. On the other hand, the rush of military grade weapons has failed to take down the Syrian government, because the more the citizens attempt to resist their government with violence, the more the government can justify deadlier and deadlier violence against them.

  • An Open Letter to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, by Rabbi Dovid Bendory at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: “Mr. Mayor, do you need a rabbi to tell you that your actions are wrong and immoral? This nation’s Bill of Rights is a sacrosanct public trust. You are a public servant. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. As you blatantly disregard the Second Amendment, the actual “Guardian” of all the rest of the Bill of Rights, I must ask you: Did you knowingly lie when you took your oath of office?”

    • Intriguing. I suppose I’ll talk to a Rabbi working with the gun lobby the next time I need an unbiased, relevant interpretation of the constitution.

        • Erm, yes, I read the letter. I don’t see how an interpretation of the constitution framed in the context of the Torah and Jewish plight (not saying the plight isn’t real) speaks to this particular issue in an unbiased way.

        • My point being that if the Rabbi is going to accuse Bloomberg of violating a promise to be the “Guardian” of the Bill of Rights, the Torah shouldn’t be his defense, nor should violent crimes committed unto Jews not protected by that Bill of Rights–his defense should be that “unbiased interpretation of the Bill of Rights” I mentioned before.

          The second amendment does not give definitive privilege to US citizens to arm themselves to tooth and nail–in fact it’s probably the most ambiguous part of the constitution.

          • @Malcom

            I don’t think he was using the Torah as his defense. I believe, if you read more closely, he was appealing to Bloomberg’s religious tradition to goad his conscience a bit.

            As to the ambiguous nature of the 2nd Amendment, let’s have a look.

            A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” A simple declarative sentence positing a reason, among many, for what follows. It could have read, ” An armed population able to defend themselves from…”., or, perhaps “As a deterrent to the accumulation of unbridled government power,” I could go on, but you get the picture. So far so good.

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Unless you have a different definition for the term “the people” than mine (it means us, the people, yes, no?) I think we’re pretty much done here.

            Oh yeah, a Right is NOT a privilege. A privilege is permission from some one claiming authority to perform a specific act. This is what progressives like to call “positive rights.” They are neither positive nor are they rights, discuss.

            • The operative clause–“right to bear arms” could just as easily be dependent on the prefatory clause “a well regulated militia.” In that case the right to bear arms would solely be tied to the involvement in a militia, and in a militia most American arms bearers certainly are not.

              “A well regulated militia” is a subjective type of militia. I wouldn’t take it to mean that any person should be allowed to possess a small armory, and I wouldn’t take it to mean any person should be denied a right to bear arms. No matter how you interpret it, a kind of reasonable “middle ground” should be inferred, hence the need for intelligent discourse to find that middle ground.

              You’re right as far as my misuse of “privilege” goes. My apologies.

              • @Malcom,

                I don’t consider, “the right of the people… ” to be a dependent clause. It says what it says. That being said, Dr Edwin Rivera believes as you do that the militia is the reason for the right. I disagree. If you don’t know, the “militia” is found sec 311 title 10 of the US code: “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Officially, that excludes me, but unofficially…. The founders believed every able bodied man comprised the militia.

                Here’s the thing, we are a violent society and the violence has increased. Why is that? I could go on for hours about this but something has changed. I have my opinions about that but I’ll let you come to your own conclusions. Guns are out there, prohibiting them in any way will not change that. We have to grow up and face the situation for what it is. We also have to grow up and face that fact that this “government” we created and allow to exist has gotten way too big for its britches and is threatening our very lives. If this is lost on you you aren’t paying any attention and will soon find out how deep down the rabbit hole we have fallen.

                I want every advantage I can muster. I didn’t shoot those kids, call a crime a crime and leave my rights alone.

                • “Here’s the thing, we are a violent society and the violence has increased.”

                  Of course, that’s actually not true.

  • Don, the NRA didn’t remain silent. They posted this on the front page of their website yesterday:



    The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

    Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

    The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

    The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

    Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.”

    It will be interesting to hear what this “meaningful contribution” will be. Somehow I doubt that it will anything more significant than platitudes like ” shocked, saddened and heartbroken… horrific and senseless.”

  • Pogreba relates his opinion of an opposing view without providing any substance as to his own; attack is his MO rather than defending a position he fails to mention. It is a cowards way. Constructive debate must engage rather than offering only ridicule and attempted intimidation of the messenger.

    Pogreba makes no mention of the immediate well-concealed exploitive remarks by Obama as he attempted (poorly) to frame it as a gun issue. Since Fast & Furious blew up in his face he must seize this crisis to refocus and further his anti-gun agenda. As Pogreba said, “It takes a special kind of “human being” to exploit the deaths of 28 people, …”

  • Don, blaming an object in reaction to a tragedy is as asinine as crucifying a “witch” in response to failed crops. In the psychology world it is referred to as psychological projection or projection bias. But after reading your responses to the commentators, I have realized that you are unwilling to have a reasonable and thought evoking debate. I liken it to have a conversation with a Creationist about Evolution, or better yet, discussing women’s rights with a Taliban member…

  • Speaking of “Gun Free Zones” Mr. Marbet states:

    “some madman who will ignore the most profound prohibition for any society, the prohibition against taking innocent life … somebody who has crossed all those stark lines would get to the edge of a gun-free zone and think to himself, ‘They have a policy against guns here, so I’d better go home and play computer games.’ ”

    How many laws, both malum in se and malum prohibitum, had this shooter already ignored before entering a “gun free zone” with obvious intent to kill?

    Would more laws and prohibitions have stop him?

    What would you, Don Pogreda, when finished with your personal attacks and avoidance of meaningful discourse, suggest as a solution that may lead to saving lives whenever a person intent on murder decides to act? A person who is first willing to ignore the fact that the taking of another persons life is inherently wrong. A person who is willing to ignore all other words written by men and women, on pieces of paper, prohibiting his chosen place of, and tools used to commit murder.

    The human race needs to start a dialogue about the seemingly growing number of individuals with murderous intent, and the best way for the innocent to protect / be protected from this group of troubled individuals.

    I would like to start……………………………………….. from the top.

    What can be done to prevent the president of the united states from ordering the execution of anyone he and his “advisors” so choose to label with a certain word? No need for facts, evidence, trials……just label them or someone who they are related to as a “terrorist” and then murder them.

    What can be done about the individuals tasked with murder in the name of a “War on Terror”, when they decied to take it upon themselves to torture, rape, and murder innocent individuals, women and children?

    What can be done about the law enforcers who daily terrorize, cage, or murder, sometimes totally innocent, or more often, none violent individuals innocent of any malum in se crime, in the name of the “War on Drugs”? (12 year old girl in Billings Montana, injured when a SWAT team throws an incendiary bomb into her sisters bedroom (for terroristic effect) . No less in a house “believed” to contain (a potentially highly explosive environment to those in the know) a meth lab! Did they intend to blow the entire house, murder everyone inside and possibly kill themselves in the process? Did they really believe they were throwing an incendiary device into a meth lab? I don’t believe so.)

    What can be done about the law enforcers who “crack” under pressure and summarily, rob, beat, tase, or execute individuals on the streets and roads of this country with increasing regularity, because the big guy with the gun “felt threatened” and has been trained that “officer safety” rules supreme over the life of a mere “citizen”?

    What can be done when a woman is being raped in the bathroom of a gas station and the police stand outside and wait for the rapist to finish and walk out the door, so they can “safely” apprehend him? And they are “justified” in their inaction, after all, the high courts have ruled that individuals have no expectation of protection being provided by police? They are law enforcers not protectors.

    You are more than welcome to twist my words in order to stir outrage among jingoist and statists of all stipe or political bent. It will not change the facts of the extreme dangers threatening the lives of individuals everywhere around the globe, daily.

    What can be done?

    About the criminal that kills with a gun, knife, baseball bat, hammer, piece of rope, explosive device?
    More laws? Ride the world of guns, knifes, baseball bats, hammers, rope, any and all chemical compounds that can be made into explosives?

    What rational solutions can you Don Pogreda, offer the human race?

    Written attacks on individuals who are proponents of personal responsibility and self defense?
    Is this going to save lives or help protect anyone from harm in the future.

    There are bad people in this world, there always will be……………and the only reasonable expectation of safety any individual can have, for themselves and their children, is that which they activity take personal responsibility for.

    The only thing that can be done to mitigate (never eliminate) threats to persons and property, is education. Teaching our children that initiation of force against another human being for any reason is inherently wrong. That initiated force by any individual or collective against them, is inherently wrong, and their responsibility is to not allow the aggressor to harm them. Be that, getting away from the aggressor our using self defense to eliminate the aggressor. We individually must be the proper example. Take personal responsibility to raise a generation of individuals who believe in and practice to the best of their ability, the None Aggression Principle, and who understand that their safety is ultimately their responsibility.

    • “What can be done about the law enforcers who “crack” under pressure and summarily, rob, beat, tase, or execute individuals on the streets and roads of this country with increasing regularity, because the big guy with the gun “felt threatened” and has been trained that “officer safety” rules supreme over the life of a mere “citizen”?”

      I don’t know, the NRA says to put one of them in every one of our schools.

  • Why I Carry a Gun

    I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to KEEP FROM BEING KILLED.

    I don’t carry a gun to scare people. ….I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world to freedom, life, and liberty.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. …I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

    I don’t carry a gun because I hate my country. I carry a gun because I understand and have experienced the limitations and abuses of government.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. …I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

    I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere, tomorrow afternoon.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. …I carry a gun because, when I die and go to Heaven, it will be with the knowledge that I was a Sheepdog, who helped protect innocent lives.

    I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

    I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. …I carry a gun because, unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

    I don’t carry a gun because I love it…. I carry a gun because I love life, and the people who make it meaningful to me.

  • When the public is disarmed by the government, history shows there is no way to stop a dictator from enslaving the population and exterminating millions of people. A shocking list of the millions of defenseless people killed by their own government the past 100 years is below. Don’t assume it could never happen here.

    While we’re all still in shock, we need to be careful what we ask for.


    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

    With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.


    Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

    It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

    You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people. We must be especially vigilant during these times when our government is controlled by militant progressives and leftists (Syn. socialist, anarchist, communist; see AGITATOR, LIBERAL, RADICAL; Webster’s College Dictionary, Fourth Edition).

      • In 2011, the national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics. Last year’s rate was the lowest of any year since 1963, when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

        Meanwhile, according to Gallup, forty-seven percent of American adults reported in 2011 that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% in 2010 and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993.

        Gun owership up. Homicides down. Stats ARE awesome.

      • Picky, picky, picky – pick and choose! Like a ventriloquist’s dummy, stats can pretty much say what you want them to. The author of the article I received from the left coast doesn’t seem to agree with your source of information. Even those fascist friends you talk about will manipulate any subject to their heart’s desire without offering any substance on an issue.

        And, I am not familiar with the various divisions of your so-called “developed world.” Do you have to have a toilet?

    • This guy’s site contributes little to our hosts obsession with denigrating Mr. Marbut for efforts and his views. The insult is your presenting it. The guy appears to be an ox-goring, wannabe writer. He appears to thrive on the insults and his legendary intellect. He is right about crazy people with guns. I’m just not sure on if he’s able to distinguish one.

      • Written like a true wingnut. Anything that adds to the discussion which doesn’t fit your tiny world view is an “insult”. Frankly, I’d say that’s all to the good. You folks kinda need to be insulted every now and then. Before you denigrate Jim any further, you might want to learn a bit about him, such as his service in defense of the country.

        • My apologies to you and Jim at Stonekettle. I appreciate anyone who has put in enough years working for gubment to know the score. Nonetheless, you know nothing of my worldview, tiny or not. Mr. Pogreba could check out Gary’s service to his country as well his sons.

          Ad hominem does seem to be one of the few tactics on this thread. Stats are wonderful. Someone should tabulate the name-calling. With less than 30% of the replies it is obvious the “usuals” here have outdone the rest with the ad hominem. No surprise. Time for me to head back under my rock to the fringe home base, sniff some glue, and listen to my own echo chamber. Be safe.

            • Yes, it is. But, this is your pulpit and you set the tone with your original piece. I can respect your views and that of Mr. Conner’s (below), though you might take a primer from his tone. It’s your take (or spin if you will). I certainly don’t take Mr. Marbut’s remarks as denigrating police whereby he makes his living.

              Calling names an argument does not make. See Mr. Rice’s 1-4 below.

              • Rhetorical devices are toys on the playgrounds of academics, especially English majors and debate coaches, practicing their trade on the inexperienced to win a point, relevant or not.

            • Why are these irrelevancies (“fascist,” “Islamofascist,” and some “statistical” file) so important to you? Are they substantive to the discussion? How? It would be more interesting if you would contribute with well-reasoned counterclaims to Mr. Marbut’s logical, rather than emotional, positions you seem to disagree with. Convince us to the contrary. I have met neither of you, but, to this point, your position is not clear to me except, maybe, for your dislike of Mr. Marbut. Is it only the timing that disturbs you?

              Present your case.

              • The timing is wrong. There is a clearly demonstrated pattern of making public remarks in the wake of shooting incidents, as my post notes. That’s incredibly offensive.

                His argument that gun violence is rare is absurd, as the evidence shows. More Americans have been killed in domestic gun incidents than have been killed in all the wars we’ve fought during the same time.

                His argument that more guns–in places like schools–is entirely without support. He has no evidence to support his claims.

                I don’t know Mr. Marbut. My concern is his willingness to distort evidence and politicize tragedy.

                • Your idea of a “demonstrated pattern” is off the mark when you consider Marbut’s position and the issues he is assigned to confront. Does not Obama have a “demostrated pattern” in the conduct of his office? It is the job. Many would believe you are searching for some issue to legitimize and comfort your angst while, at the same time, establishing an ongoing false narrative.

                  Were you critical of Obama and Rice with their claims Benghazi was a spontaneous event, in response to a video no one had seen, or does your progressive entrapment prevent such thinking? Wasn’t it offensive, with the death of four Americans, that he and Rice would immediately rush to judgement with falsity to selfishly protect themselves? Now there is a case for you because each has a true “demostrated pattern” strewn with deflection and lies.

                  Obama presented an immediate, before Marbut, cleverly crafted speech with allusions to guns and violence, but, then, you seem to have missed it. Isn’t that “incredibly offensive?” “Can’t let a good crisis go to waste,” can we? You extend and politicize the tragedy you abhor, attacking the messenger, unjustly, with your repetition; compounding your envisioned problem, redressing it in your own mind acceptable to some sort of tainted progressivism.

                  If it was “timing,” as you say, then, you must be concerned with Obama and his “willingness to distort evidence and politicize tragedy,” from the bully pulpit, as he has done with the Newtown tragedy and Benghazi murders.

                  Your “same time” (2001-2010) phrase conflated with use of the word “wars” is a confusing. Are these legalized and declared wars or “wars” granted a president on the whims of a cowardly Congress, afraid of retribution for failing to exercise their just duty? Specificity dear professor – specificity. I do not believe we have had wars within your constructed time frame so as to legitimize the statistics you present – not declared and legalized wars. “The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight.” – It is fun to grab knowlege with a keystroke.

                  We should all be concerned with any willingness to distort and politicize tragedy in order to serve a lesser god.

                • Let’s imagine everything you said about President Obama in that rant is true. It’s not, but let’s pretend.

                  None of it changes the fact that Mr. Marbut ghoulishly chimes in immediately after horrific gun violence to increase his profile.


                • You do not have to imagine the truth, it speaks for itself. And, pretending Obama lies is falsity undressed. If you want to play that game with progressive flapdoodle, you’re welcome to your minimalist rant.

                  No one. And, I say no one is more concerned about getting in front of another’s parade to pad his image than Obama, immediately politicizing the tragedy in Newtown. Marbut wasn’t a close second, except in liberal fiction.

  • What web based rock did all of you crawl out from under….would you please provide a link? I would really like to see what the homebase looks like.

  • Gary Marbut loves guns. He has many friends who love and defend him. He expounds his beliefs with great enthusiasm and conviction. I do not question his sincerity, but I do question his judgment. He’s a True Believer: you can agree or disagree with him, but you cannot change his mind; not at the point of a fact, not at the point of a gun.

    He’s also been around long enough, and more than loudly enough, that he’s predictable. I knew as soon as I learned of the Sandy Hook murders that it wouldn’t be long before Marbut averred that the solution was arming educators. And I also knew that the Missoulian, desperate to flog circulation, and always ready to run a story on a colorful character, would gleefully report Marbut’s fantasies.

    I share Don’s disgust and anger with Marbut’s reckless shooting off of his mouth.

  • Mr Marbut is absolutely correct. If the “human beings” who are pushing for more restrictive gun laws actually cared about children’s safety, as thy claim to, they would be calling for an end to those so-called “Gun Free Zones” that are responsible for so many mass murders, and not for infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, which only increases these crimes. Clearly, criminals do not obey laws. That *should* be obvious by now. And isn’t it sadly ironic that those who claim to care about children so much that they’d decimate our rights are the same “human beings” that advocate for the mass slaughter of 125,000 innocent children each and every day? They have no credibility on the issue of children’s safety. NONE whatsoever.

    The belief that these “gun free zones” will prevent crime relies upon flawed reasoning, namely the belief that criminals will be deterred by these new “gun free zone” laws, even know they are not deterred by longstanding laws against murder, armed robbery, etc.

    A person who is willing to commit a serious crime like murder or armed robbery, or a person who is planning to kill themselves, will not even give a second thought the penalty for carrying a gun. They know that if they are caught, the gun possession charge will be the least of their worries, or they are too mentally disturbed to think rationally about and care about the penalties. In short, criminals ignore gun control laws.

    On the other hand, the law abiding students, teachers, and shoppers who were unable to defend themselves had a lot to live for, and didn’t want to risk their freedom and futures by facing a gun possession charge. A teacher who unlawfully carried a gun in self defense could lose their job, and face jail time. A college student who illegally carried a gun for self defense could be expelled and face bleak career prospects, in addition to the specter of a prison sentence. A mall shopper who unlawfully carried a gun would face similar prospects. This shows that the gun free zones only disarm the law abiding citizens who we don’t need to fear, and won’t deter the killers.

    Those advocating for “Gun Free Zones” and more restrictive gun laws for law abiding citizens are completely ignoring the fact that criminals don’t obey laws (including gun control laws), and that failure to obey laws is what makes them criminals.

    We don’t need to spin things. The facts speak for themselves. ore guns equals less crime. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a crime deterrent.

    We must ban those “gun free zones”. NOT guns.

  • He who has the biggest stick does not always conquer, if his opponent has a stick too. (psych criminals vs law abiding citizens).
    He who has a stick is not defenseless. (“land of the free, home of the brave” mean anything to ya???)
    He who has no stick is boot-to-ant. (Nazi Germany?????)

    I choose to have a stick, use it if needed, and not be the ant!

  • I think you’re being punk’d, Don. These people can’t be real. They’re like humorous stereotypes — the glue-sniffin’, grammar-manglin’, bald-eagle-shirt wearin’, gun-totin’, Constitution-lovin’ conspiracy theory nuts. All that was missing was a reference to black helicopters, Vince Foster, and FEMA camps waiting to be used to imprison all liberty-loving people! Seriously, if people like this really do exist, and they’re all armed, it’d be a really, really, really, really, really, really, really good argument for gun control.

    • I thought the same, actually, but I think it’s real. The traffic’s all coming from the same few places.

      I suspect the best argument for restrictions on gun ownership and purchases didn’t come in my original post, but in the comments below.

      Terrifying stuff.

          • Ol’ Wolf keeps lauding Western Europe as some kind of example for peace. How many hunderds of years of warfare did it take them to get there? Think it was worth it? They basically destroyed their own continent and scores of millions of lives with it in the last Century. I don’t know how you expect or why you’d want to replicate that here.

            As for the “teachers aren’t cops” argument, that’s quite true. Armed teachers would not be cops patrolling the hauls for to make arrests. They’d be guardians. Like the armed Israeli teachers. We’re not talking about just letting them pick up a gun and haul it to school. We’re talking about training only volunteers, with regular qualification drills, etc. And I don’t see cops standing around in circular firing squads like you imagine teachers would. It’s a silly argument.

            We have armed pilots and air marshals on commercial airlines. Don’t our kids and teachers deserve the same protection?

            It’s sad we have to consider such measures. But there it is. I have a hard time trying to get my head around a world view that would rather be loyal to a Progressive political ideology than to give teachers the means to protect themselves and their students. Very sad indeed.

      • Don — your smug comments continue to make me and the overwhelming majority of people here and those that love our Constitution very sad. You are a piece of work, NOT fitting to teach our children in a school environment because you lack the values and guidance that they need. It is Americans like you, Don Pogreba, that will decide how much the USA goes into disarray: you are certainly on the side that causes more of the problems.

        • While I appreciate the lecture on values from someone who holds a PhD from an online diploma mill, your absolute dearth of factual refutation and reliance on your notion of American values makes your “argument” nothing more than a sad commentary from the fringe.

          Nice try.

        • Gun carrying people are saying they are responsible for our safety if we don’t carry. Stand your ground has become vigilante justice because the courts are overwhelmed with suspects in the war on drugs. Our communities are becoming armed camps and we’re barricaded in our homes afraid to let our kids go to school.

          There are 83 vacancies on the federal bench where zero American Indians serve. The New Jim Crow has created a generation of a non-white school to prison pipeline and bullied kids become young white men who have retreated into a virtual sanctum who believe victims are the problem.

          Have the gangbangers always been right because a gun is power?

          Is this how Americans really want to live? Carry rifles and sidearms into every bar, church, and arena?

          Maybe this would be a great time for a piece of rhubarb pie.

    • You must be reading a liberally revised edition of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales or maybe the latest leftist version of Alice In Wonderland. Maybe you are describing nightmares, having little to do with Marbut’s letter.

      Be careful of the rabid hole. It is filled with the same angst you suffer. However, your dreams may be less frightful.

  • Wow Don! So to all of you who would like to have a true debate on guns, one that our forefathers would be proud of, I would like to refocus the argument. A little lesson in successful rhetoric:
    1. Let’s talk about the issue at hand.
    2. Let’s use arguments based on sound findings of fact that support our positions.
    3. Let’s avoid flawed logic, there is a lot of red herrings here, lets all look at what we have written and check it for fallacious logic. Here is a Wikipedia article which has a list of fallacies that are well represented here:
    4. Let’s focus on solutions to our problem: Twenty, 6 to 7 year old children, were shot to death. How do we as a society prevent future tragedies like this from happening?

    Finally, people I am posting because I want this debate to take place. This is how we get a “more perfect union,” but that is only true if we have arguments of substance and not vitriol. It is only true if we have open minds and see the value of each others experience and beliefs.

    • Nice post Greg. As a the author of a debate manual, we’d expect Don to be more observant of the ordinary rules of courtesy, evidence and logic. Your admonition should help.

      • Quentin, I don’t see the flaws in Don’s logic. He has done remarkably well at fending off the feckless and spurious attacks on his person for trying to have public discourse. I think if you read his posts you will find that true 99% of the time, which is in my mind quite stoic of him given the tenor and focus of most commenters.

        • Well, Anon, let me give you an example. But first, note that Don’s attack on Gary Marbut came before anyone said a thing about Don. I’m not sure I’m too sympathetic to complaints about folks responding in kind. Back to the topic of logic, Don excoriates Gary for saying he’d wished he’d been there to stop the shooter at Sandy Hook. Fact is, Gary is an expert practical pistol marksman. In other words, if the Sandy Hook shooter had encountered Gary or anyone like him, instead of the heroic but unarmed teachers, a great many of the dead would be home today in the arms of their loved ones. Logic would indicate this to be a good thing, not something over which Don should have waxed hateful.

          I hope you never encounter a situation like the one that faced the teachers of Sandy Hook. If you do, I hope someone like Gary Marbut is nearby.

            • Not long ago there was a law clerk for the Montana Supreme Court who was stabbed to death in your sleeply little down by a couple meth-heads. Too bad someone like Gary wasn’t with him. He’d be able to join us in this debate. Instead, he dead. At least he was acting responsibly by not carrying a gun. Cold comfort.

              • Hey folks, recognize this post for what it really is; that is, a ding-a-ling who gets his kicks out of pulling people’s “chains” at our expense. There are far more productive ways to use time. He IS kind of funny though. The down side is, these types all have one vote.

                • I would probably stop arguing, too. You’re certainly not helping your side.

                  I never need to say another word about gun control again. The insane, extremist rhetoric from your side makes it quite clear what needs to be done.


                • If you don’t care about life, then why bring up the topic of guns in your little blog here? By your definition, you’ve been “exploiting” death all day. You can’t protect your neighbors from drug-addeled thugs with knives, but you would refuse to let them protect themselves, just so you can remain true to a pure Progressive political perspective. It’s a sad position for you to be in Don. You should take a lesson from Governor Schweitzer.

    • Agree. I have seen this discussion from beginning to end. However, where leftists and their similarly compromised progressives are concerned, enlightenment is a futile quest. They covet rules for radicals while looking through a peephole, preventing any meaningful dialogue.

      You sit in a pew for decades, like Obama did with Wright, listening to the same sermon because the preacher knows the subsequent generations have yet to hear it. Indoctrination is a necessary evil, occupanied by the repeated lie, to legitimize its existence as truth. Such is the state of liberal ideology that always succumbs to its unique form of flapdoodle.

      Depending on the knowledge of the participants, the discussion of Marbut’s letter should be interesting and, hopefully, educational – even if only to create doubt.

      • While asking someone who thinks this has something to do with Reverend Wright seems about as useful as asking him to loosen his tinfoil hat, would you care to point out any factual arguments?

        I know screeching about indoctrination and progressives passes for argument in some circles, but over here in the reality-based community we prefer evidence.

        • I’m not asking.

          Your discomfort is evidence enough of the correctness of my post. Reinterpretation beyond your Alinsky-like progressive ideology is necessary. Of course it has nothing to do with Wright. Your better than that. Your the expert. Must we all bow to supposed kings; your bio presents a self-claimed “appeal to authority.” Is it your way or the highway?

          If a rattlesnake bit you you would want evidence.

          Your falling down the rabid hole – screeching about irrelevancies.

            • Referencing a book you claim to not have read, collecting dust on your outhouse shelf, is odious. Considering all that liberal flapdoodle about Mr. Marbut, I am inclined to believe your similarities with good ol’ Saul are instinctive – progressive inbreeding?

              As I reread the material on Marbut and your countering rant, I am more inclined to believe Marbut’s position, regardless of timing. He is trying to be constructive while you’re lost in your own time warp.

              I doubt I will ever meet you or Mr. Marbut. However, I have read and referenced Obama’s idol, Saul Alinsky, on many occasions. It is useful for identifying the MO of similar quacks. A duck call is unnecessary.

  • So, Mr. Pogreba, you don’t believe that we should have the same options as the teachers in Israel have? Obviously, sir, their reputation at keeping children safe, because the teachers are trained and required to carry a firearm at all times while with their students, when they go on field trips, the chaperones are required to carry a weapon, as well. And guess what? They’re ASSAULT weapons! Obviously, the liberals such as yourself don’t believe that we already have enough gun control that controls the law-abiding citizen, but not the criminals. Sir, when the guns can be taken from the criminals, such as the ones that run Chicago, and kill 34 people MONTHLY, on average, then you can ask for law-abiding citizens to give up their guns.

    • You’re right Rhonda. And what’s more, the Israeli school teachers carry REAL asssault wepons. Not like the MForgeries for sale here in the US. That means they shoot automatic — like machine guns. When was the last time anyone heard about a mass school shooting in Israel? Don’t happen.

      Nice post!

      • But wrong. There certainly have been school shootings in Israel, most notably in 1974 and 2008.

        More importantly, I would absolutely agree with Israel’s policy on guns. From the Jerusalem Post:

        “There is an essential difference between the two. In America the right to bear arms is written in the law, here it’s the opposite… only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license.”

        Amit said gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement, or those who live in settlements “where the state has an interest in them being armed.”

        He added that former IDF officers above a certain rank can get a license.

        Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.

        Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.

        • Excellent policy. With some modifications, we should require it of all school teachers, college professors and daycare providers in the United States. Nice post, Don.

          • The policy doesn’t require anyone to own guns. In fact, far fewer Israelis own guns that do Americans.

            He estimated there are about 170,000 privately-owned firearms in Israel, or enough for around one out of every 50 Israelis, far less per capita than the US, where there are an estimated more than 300 million privately owned guns for a population of a little more than 300 million.

            Check this out: far fewer guns, far fewer gun deaths.

            • In Russia, the number of murders per 100,000 people was 15.1 in 2009, and in the United States, the number of murders per 100,000 people was only 4.96. Meanwhile, Russia ranks 68th in rate of fireams in civilian hands, with 8.9 firearms per 100 people, while the U.S. ranks first with 88.8 per 100 people. (Sources:

              Result: Far more guns, far less homicide.

    • “then you can ask for law-abiding citizens to give up their guns.”

      Who did that? I mean seriously, WHO? No on is asking any gun owners to hand in their guns. We are simply suggesting that perhaps it would be wise to put some more controls on who is going to buy guns in the future, and what kind of guns they will have access to. I’m personally unconvinced that restrictions on long-arms of any kind will have a real effect on gun violence, since such a huge proportion of murders are committed with handguns, but the hysteria here about losing guns is really outrageous.

      • If people are not talking about requiring us to give up our guns, just what the heck are they talking about? Would “reasonable restrictions” have stopped any of the shooters in any of the three shooting sprees over the last several months? For example, under U.S. law, people with diagnosed mental health issues are not allowed to have guns. Sounds like a reasonable restriction on guns, right? Yet both Aurora and Sandy Hook were committed by shooters with previously diagnosed with mental health issues. Didn’t work. The Oregon mall-shooter was stopped by a armed private citizen with concealed carry permit. Did work.

        There are already plenty of reasonable restrictions on guns. I hear lots of people talking about more reasonable restrictions, but they all insist — insist — they do not mean to take any guns away. Well, get specific. Exactly what do you mean? And why do you think your proposal would have saved the kids and teachers at Sandy Hook or the movie goers in Aurora?

        • I would propose more requirements or at least incentives for gun locks in households, restrictions on magazine capacities, a searchable, national database of multiple rifle sales to one purchaser, and a requirement for gun shows and private gun sales to screen potential buyers against lists of violent and sexual offenders.

          As Rob has pointed out in the past, the assault weapons ban largely depends on stylistic elements, not functionality, to define the weapons; however, some limits on the fire rate of rifles might have reduced the lethality of Aurora and Newtown; I don’t see an outright ban on semi-auto rifles in the future, though; they have too much market penetration already, and guns are durable goods, so banning new sales would simply drive up the secondary market. A restriction on clip sizes is also reasonable, but probably not practical. Honestly, I don’t think anything more than those are likely – anyone telling you otherwise is just trying to feed into paranoia and sell guns.

          • The problem with your “solution” is that these restrictions on freedom have no effect. Almost all firearms crime are committed with handguns. You would limit law-abiding citizens and have no appreciable effect on the problem you claim to address. That’s just bad public policy.

            Put your energy and political capital into finding solutions for mental illness in this country. These poor people are suffering, mainly in silence, in the millions. And they are almost exclusively the mass killers.

            • We agree that long guns are not the major problem with gun laws in this country. But there’s absolutely no reason not to require anyone selling a gun to ask to see ID and reference a violent crimes registry before selling the gun. And subsidizing the purchase of gun locks and gun cases would be an easy way to reduce accidental deaths and stolen guns. Tracking semi-auto rifle purchases would do little for US crime rates, but it would certainly help track down the truly immoral people who are selling rifles to Mexican drug cartels.

              But ultimately, strangely, I agree with you that if this event spurs us into action for anything, it should be a our treatment of mental health. But I have to disagree that gun rights are in any real danger or that more guns will lower the crime rate.

  • Don,
    You really have cemented your reputation as a knee-jerk here. You deserve heat.
    There are some of us who aren’t into learned helplessness. One fewer, sadly, and that’s the school principal, Dawn Hochsprunger. She ran to the sound of the gun, unarmed.
    What a selfless, courageous champion.
    What if she’d been able to defend her kids and herself? She certainly had the courage needed.
    But that doesn’t fit your narrative. And never will.

    • Dave:

      I think that to get into almost any classroom to cause harm to the students there, you’d have to go through the teacher. Teaching definitely builds up a powerful protective instinct: no on is getting to my students while I can stop it.

      But the logistics of the arming teachers are a huge problem. It only makes sense if the teachers are trained to make sure that the guns never fall into the wrong hands. It’s not unheard of for a teenager to take a swing at a teacher (teachers that work with ED or some other categories of kids kind of have to get used to that); think of how badly that could go if there’s a gun involved. And again, someone fires a shot in the hallway, and a half dozen teachers exit their classrooms, all carrying guns? How many people get killed in the crossfire, shot by their comrades (who have no idea who the shooter is) or by police when they storm the building?

      But the bigger problem is what that does to the teacher-student relationship. Kids rarely have good relationships with police, and at least part of that is because police have to be ready to use force, they carry guns, there is an immediate imbalance of power. With a police officer, there’s little you can do about that imbalance, but we don’t need to replicate that with a teacher. There is something honorable in wanting to be armed if you have to defend your students, and if someone wanted in to my classroom, I’m sure I’d wish I had a gun to defend them, but for the 99.99% of teachers who will never deal with that, guns in the classroom are far more dangerous and troublesome than any potential use they would have in the very rare case that a teacher needs to shoot an intruder.

      The biggest issue comes down to what kind of society we want. We can look at Western Europe, where generally the answer to violence is seen as reducing the violence in society as a whole, or we can try to counter violence with more violence against the perpetrators. Putting guns in classrooms teaches our students that you respond to violence with more violence. It’s a legitimate way to look at the world in theory, but its a rare society in practice where the wide distribution of deadly weapons has been successful in bringing murder rates down to a level comparable to Western Europe or East Asia.

      • Wolfie, I’m going to have to disagree.
        Europe is full of riots and violence these days on a scale almost never seen in America. The French riots, the Greeks, the Germans, the Brits over “austerity.” Never mind that a democratic Europe wouldn’t even exist these days were it not for the Americans, and the Americans helping supply the Russians with American hardware.
        As for arming schools, I don’t think it’s a first choice, heck no. Schools are supposed to be safe. Yet one has to wonder if there shouldn’t be a “hurt locker” safe or two, pretty much completely secure and secret, hopefully never used while this country remembers what it is supposed to be.

        • I’m with you Dave (and PW). Just like schools have fire extinguishers behind glass at different locations, schools could have safes containing firearms at a few locations. Only teachers who wished the responsibility would be responsible for carrying/accessing keys. This way teachers wouldn’t have to carry, but the school would not be a gun-free fishbowl for crazies.

          Don, you have been stoic, but your acid draws it from others with other ideologies. You don’t like Marbut’s timing? You have no beef with him: Your beef is with the media that has to track him down because they can’t flog the NRA.

          Eisenhouer’s Military/Industrial complex wasn’t the apex. It’s the Gubment/Media complex we need to worry about.

        • Dave –

          The riots in Europe are a huge example of how much less violent it is than the United States. Huge protests and riots with extensive property damage are not uncommon there, but nothing like the death counts of the Watts or Rodney King riots people are angry, but they don’t translate that anger into murder. As for a secret weapons safe, it probably wouldn’t hurt anything but I doubt it would be accessed quickly enough to make a real difference.

    • Yeah, the “heat” of these arguments has been really taxing to deal with, Dave.

      As for your comment, have you no decency? No sense of shame? The principal and staff at Sandy Hook risked and lost their lives protecting their children. To question their actions from the safety of your home where you imagine yourself heroically intervening is beyond reprehensible and perfectly illustrative of the mindset of those who would ignore the foundation of the Constitution, our values about schools and communities, and basic human decency to compensate for something missing in their lives.

      People like you don’t make me angry, just profoundly sad.

      • What, are you channeling the McCarthy hearings now?
        As for imagining my own “heroism,” I would hope not. Don’t want to go there. But on the other hand, I’m pretty sure I would. I’ve been in several situations where I’ve put myself at major risk to stop bad accidents from happening to others. Every time I surprised myself, and shook down after.
        So — I just hope if I ever have to do the right thing, I do it. Could never just stand and watch.

        • Among the things I’ve promised I won’t do if I return to blogging is to respond to people like you. Your condescension about the staff at Sandy Hook is the most repulsive comment I’ve ever seen on this blog.

          Have the decency to take it back.

        • Dave, your replies and posts are problem oriented and respectful. You laud the teachers at Sandy Hook. Yet the site host twists this on you, as he does with his Marbut information, and demands an apology for your repulsiveness.

          It’s not my specialty, but methinks you have elucidated one of the host’s problems. It’s one someone mentioned early in the thread: Transference. You see, Don is a teacher who doesn’t like Marbut because Marbut speaks about guns. So like a left-wing blog writer, he is quick to emotionally associate with fellow teachers who are “heros”. He is also quick to associate anyone who sees the usefulness of a tool, called a firearm, with bad guys like the mentally deranged killer in New Town.

          The problem, which you know from your “…doesn’t fit your (DP) narrative” remark above is the emotion. Don would apparently much rather prefer six dead “heros” to one living hero who used an evil gun (and maybe a lot of children). I mean, he’s a teacher and wouldn’t want any guns in schools. He doesn’t even like talk about guns within an unspecified time frame around this tragedy. He doesn’t seem to care to much about any solutions so long as he gets his bully pulpit and to promote his narrative. I think you should consider the apology Don. Both to Mr. Skinner and Mr. Marbut. I don’t mind if you hold any resentment to some of the other commenters, myself included. Rudeness does breed rudeness and the whole subject of “bearing arms” has to do with self defense. You are entitled to jab back at idiots, but to demand Skinner retract his compliments of a brave Ms. Hochsprunger is beyond ridiculous. It shows how your attachment to your profession and your ideology baffles your reading comprehension in some cases.

          By the way, for someone who quibbles to score debate points on semi-colon usage, you should know that a hero successfully completes something, does something heroic. Ms. Hochsprunger was undoubtedly very brave. She would have been a hero had she saved even one child, but she didn’t. Dying doesn’t make you a hero. Perhaps (speculation alert) properly equipped many a New Town youth and parent could call her their hero. As it is, only anti-gunners can call her a hero because she didn’t use a gun.

          • If you are reading a compliment towards Ms. Hochspringer in those remarks, you are reading something very different than I am. Mr. Skinner’s sarcastic dismissal of her actions is the worst thing I’ve read on this blog in seven years, as I mentioned.

            As for your amateur psychology, I suggest that you focus on facts instead. I have no particular attachment to the teachers or principals at Sandy Hook. I do, however, share a sense of horror about the absurd gun policies in this country, policies not based on an accurate reading of the constitution nor based on improving the safety of our people.

            Instead, we have a no-holds barred climate of gun ownership that has gone far beyond what is reasonable, far beyond what the founders intended, and far beyond the place where we can feel safe.

            You and I have very different definitions of what it means to be a hero. That’s fine. Our differences about policy, though, are not. The ones you’ve endorsed have made the United States a far more dangerous place–and the evidence supports that.

            Stick to facts, not armchair psychology.

            • Well Mr. Pogreba,

              I am glad you are not on the Supreme Court. I do not feel you have a market on the “accurate reading” of the Constitution. Nor do I think your armchair psychology of the founders is accurate. As to the facts; you do not have them on your side either. It all depends on definitions. Throughout this discussion we have seen how gun deaths, homicides with guns, etc. can skew any resulting statistics. You know the saying about liars and statistics.

              The Second Amendment to the Constitution as written is quite reasonable. It’s not about hunting. It’s about individuals having arms capable of resisting military forces in the worst case. This ability enables a nation to avoid many deaths. It discourages armed tyranny and foreign invasion. How many gun deaths have resulted from these activities?

              The Jewish holocaust in WWII is reported to have killed 6 about million. Most killed were not directly with guns, but guns were behind all the deaths. Without the aggressors having guns, the victims would have just escaped or refused the train ride or shower.

              I find you to be very well read. I would encourage you to read something on the Warsaw Ghetto in WWII.

  • Ol’ Wolf keeps lauding Western Europe as some kind of example for peace. How many hunderds of years of warfare did it take them to get there? Think it was worth it? They basically destroyed their own continent and scores of millions of lives with it in the last Century. I don’t know how you expect or why you’d want to replicate that here.

    As for the “teachers aren’t cops” argument, that’s quite true. Armed teachers would not be cops patrolling the hauls for to make arrests. They’d be guardians. Like the armed Israeli teachers. We’re not talking about just letting them pick up a gun and haul it to school. We’re talking about training only volunteers, with regular qualification drills, etc. And I don’t see cops standing around in circular firing squads like you imagine teachers would. It’s a silly argument.

    We have armed pilots and air marshals on commercial airlines. Don’t our kids and teachers deserve the same protection?

    It’s sad we have to consider such measures. But there it is. I have a hard time trying to get my head around a world view that would rather be loyal to a Progressive political ideology than to give teachers the means to protect themselves and their students. Very sad indeed.

  • Don,

    I know you have a lot of comments and may have missed mine, so let’s try again.

    I take issue with your statement “Why the Montana media continue to pay attention to Mr. Marbut escapes me. He represents an extremist fringe and almost no one else.”

    Excuse me, but how does somebody who represents an “extremist fringe” write 58 bills that get passed into law in this state? Does that mean we have an “extremist fringe” legislature and “extremist fringe” executive branch also? They are the ones that turned the bills into laws. Add: Many, many of these bills that Gary wrote were signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Including the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, I’m sure you’ve heard of that one. Does that posit his values with the “extremist fringe”? Or maybe the “extremist fringe” in your mind is much more “mainstream” in this “glorious state” that you care to admit?


    • Try polling some of the bills Marbut tried to get through the last Legislature. Many of the 58 bills you tout were relatively minor changes, but his more radical proposals aren’t what Montanans want.

      As for the Firearms Freedom Act, I think Schweitzer was wrong–but that the law doesn’t actually matter much.

      • Thank you Don. Laws always matter.

        Gary may not get every bill he writes passed into law, but who does? Politics dictate that you always don’t get what you want. “Minor” is in the eye of the beholder, his effectiveness is the envy of many of his enemies.

  • Just remember, this discussion started because a leftist and his progressive friends were disturbed that a conservative did not honor their concept of “timing.” Amazing.

      • Don’t try to tell me what I do or do not acknowledge, using terms of your own connivance. It is not for you to know or judge by what manner I will engage. I never define terms on the deck of the Titanic with a progressive running for a lifeboat.

  • Don Pogreba wrote: “To be fair, using logic and reason probably *is* intimidating to some of you. I’m fairly certain, though, that no one on my side of the debate has called anyone a fascist.”

    Really Don? Here’s someone from YOUR SIDE of the debate using “logic and reason”:

    “Consider the rhetoric of University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis. He teaches “U.S. environmental history, the Civil War, late 19th and early 20th century America, labor history, and the American West” in the university’s history department. Online, however, Professor Loomis is a militantly unhinged foe of all things conservative.

    This week, the nutty professor took to Twitter to rail against law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association. “Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children,” Professor Loomis fumed. “Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” he added. (LaPierre is Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the NRA.) Professor Loomis was just warming up.

    “F**k the National Rifle Association and its policies to put crazy guns in everyone’s hands,” Professor Loomis tweeted. “You are g*dd*mn right we should politicize this tragedy. F**k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison,” he spewed. “Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?”

  • Don Pogreba wrote: “To be fair, using logic and reason probably *is* intimidating to some of you. I’m fairly certain, though, that no one on my side of the debate has called anyone a fascist.”

    Really Don? Here’s another person from YOUR SIDE using “logic and reason”:

    “In Texas, state Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias threw fuel on the fire. Cobarruvias is the Democratic Party precinct chair in Houston, Texas, and holds a seat on the Texas State Democratic Party’s Executive Committee. On his Twitter feed, Cobarruvias labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and called for the assassination of NRA leaders and supporters: “Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?”

    • Not to worry, Carl. There are plenty of WWII vets, my dad included, that would have gladly lined all communists up against a wall to assassinate the lot of ’em. As a boy I never heard the end of it. The belief was, among most military personnel, that we should have dealt with Der Fuehrer after he had taken out as many communists as time would allow; “killing two ‘dodos’ with one stone.”

      Many Democratic Party leaders (referring to democrat Cobarruvias in your post) are the embodiment of their own angst with such hatred of the NRA, as well as millions of the rest of us. They are the perverse terrorists. Patriotic NRA leaders are not the ones to be targeted for assissination, as suggested by this democrat. It is the communist and Marxist living among us who hate America, enemies befriended by too many Democratic Party leaders who, themselves, covertly carry the same label, needing the treatment.

      Let the assassination afficionados in the Democrat Party have at it.

  • Are our children as precious to us as our President? If so, armed guards in schools need to meet the same standards of evaluation, training and monitoring as the Secret Service. And the fact that we have a universally accepted standard of e, t and m that makes us comfortable to have people with loaded guns standing next to our head of state, 24/7 gives us a starting point for deciding the level of e,t and m that should go with any and all levels of gun ownership. Surely a higher standard should prevail for owning an A-15 as opposed to a single shot, .410 shotgun or a .22. Simply declaring yourself a “law-abiding citizen” shouldn’t get you a gun. Or that would be the standard for the Secret Service.

Support Our Work!


Who Are You Supporting in the Democratic Primary for the Senate

Subscribe Via E-mail

Follow us on Twitter

Send this to a friend