January 30, 2023

Montana Governor Bullock Wants Semiautomatic Gun Ban for America

Op-Ed by Gary Marbut is President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association

Montana – -(AmmoLand.com)- Montana Gov. Steve Bullock’s comments came in response Sunday to a question posed to him on CNN’s State of The Union.

Host Jake Tapper asked Bullock if he would support an “assault weapons ban, a ban on some forms of semiautomatic weapons.”

Bullock answered, “You know, I would, Jake.”

Some people depend for success on being able to fool others – swindlers, con men, fraudsters, and too many political climbers. That applies to Montana’s Governor Steve Bullock (D-Montana) who is term-limited in Montana but now grasping at the straws of national office.

In order to get elected to statewide office in Montana, Bullock had to claim enough support for the Second Amendment to fool some swing voters. If he had not successfully asserted support for gun rights, he would not have been elected to any statewide office in Montana.

We are now informed by Bullock himself that he lied to voters to get elected Governor. He has only as much respect for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as is needed to get elected to the next public office on his quest. With his new aspiration to become President, he has abandoned all pretense of supporting the Second Amendment and conveniently argues for wholesale gun control. Bullock’s only perspective on Montana at this point is through his rear view mirror.<<<Read More>>>


Dick’s Sporting Goods: I Laughed Til I Pissed My Pants

I figure better that than getting mad for a bold-face lie being spread by Dick’s Sporting Goods who say they are “destroying” all the “assault-style” guns they pulled from their shelves, along with related accessories.

I have one word for Dick’s and anyone who will buy into their fascist propaganda:



It Is What You Want it to Be



Gary Johnson: Making of Instant Criminals

In an interview with Gary Johnson, libertarian candidate for U.S. President, when asked about his thoughts on “banning assault weapons” his response went something like this (I am paraphrasing):

There are basically two issues with banning assault weapons. First, if the U.S. were to ban “assault weapons” he doubted that even half would abide by any such ruling, instantaneously turning millions of Americans into criminals.

Second, “automatic” weapons have been banned in this country for many years.

Related articles across the web


House Democrats Introduce Bill to Ban Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’

With a total of 91 Democrats pushing the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015,” it is interesting to note that the New York Times previously reported that the idea of a class of firearms called “assault weapons” is a piece of fiction the Democrats created in the 1990s. In an article titled, “The Assault Weapon Myth,” the NYT explained that Democrats created the phrase “assault weapons” in hopes of stigmatizing an entire category of guns—blaming those guns for rising crime—then banning them.

Source: House Democrats Introduce Bill to Ban Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’ – Breitbart


Beyond The Obvious In Connecticut’s Refusal to Register Guns

DisarmamentSo long as the citizens of this country willfully remain no more than participants in a maneuver by government officials, in cahoots with controlled media outlets, they play into the hands of the global ruling elite that want Americans disarmed. Some may ask how can I say that following what, on the surface, appears to be pure American defiance against those making laws contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

The subject at hand is the act of Connecticut gun owners who refused to obey the Constitution State’s (that’s a joke isn’t it?) law that required all people who own “assault rifles/weapons” to register them by January 1, 2014. Not very many people did.

Let’s try to examine this action on a level much deeper than hip, hip, hooray for those defiant gun owners.

The Second Amendment states, “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.” Perhaps the Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, has been abused, tread on, altered, demonized, misinterpreted and used against the citizens of the United States as a means by the government to display its power over the people and the usurpation of rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, stated that it was the finding of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the people, that is the lawful citizens of this nation, have the right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms. He did not affirm that this right was without restrictions. One can therefore look at Heller v. District of Columbia as either an affirmation of a individual’s right to keep and bear arms, or an affirmation that even though the Second Amendment provides that right to an individual, government can make limitations against it, including prohibiting the sale and purchase of guns as we have already seen.

The global ruling establishment wants the United States of America to become unarmed. I have repeatedly written that, in my opinion, the fact that millions upon millions of Americans possess millions upon millions of arms and ammunition, it is the last deterrent toward tyranny and despotic rule. You might be saying then why am I not so enthused about the actions shown by Connecticut gun owners?

Actually, I am enthused, as I believe that any government that willfully and without regard, attempts to destroy the rights of people guaranteed by God and our constitution, should be defied. After all, isn’t that how America became separated from Great Britain and the despotic King George III?

There is more to this than a simple matter of defying the Connecticut government and that’s the part that bothers me.

Let’s start with the term “assault rifle.” This term was coined deliberately and with reason behind it. Just the word assault, because of years of brainwashing by our education institutions and media manipulations, have programmed humans to react to “assault weapon” as something to greatly fear; as though it had a will of its own, walking about seeking whom it may devour.

That’s only one small word that is part of a bigger plan to disarm America.

Who believes that the United States Government, or any other government or power, is going to simply one day demand that all Americans turn over their weapons and ammunition? Voluntarily, this will never happen. There needs to be a justifiable reason (justifiable by government interpretation) to forcefully take those weapons away and/or by some foreign invasion of this country in which Americans, even while putting up a fight, would eventually cede their weapons.

We have debated this issue for decades and some even recognize the so-called “incremental” attack on the Second Amendment through fear mongering, lying, cheating, stealing, the calling for “reasonable restrictions,” demands of background checks, gun registrations, permits, etc. And how has that effort gone?

There has been some success, mainly through those too gutless to stand up for the protection of rights and too ignorant, blinded by the media’s onslaught of lies and fabricated “data,” to not side with those calling for “reasonable” restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Consider some of those “reasonable” restrictions that we have so willingly given up:

1.)Restrictions of what kinds of “arms” and ammo we are allowed to keep and bear, quantities and size.
2.)Giving in and requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This being nothing more than in part a registration of gun ownership.
3.)Gun registration with the purchase of any gun through a licensed dealer.
4.)Background checks.

Do we have these same “reasonable” restrictions (remember reasonable is by someone’s definition and/or interpretation) on religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, privacy, search and seizure, etc, to the same degree?

In Connecticut, we see that evidently the majority of gun owners said requiring them to come forward and register their “assault” weapons was too much and are defying that law. So what is any of this accomplishing?

First off, the two actions, one by government and one by the citizenry, has played nicely into the hands of the media – a tool of the global ruling establishment. They now have an issue in which they can effectively play one side of the people against the other side – divide and conquer.

Government erred (or did they?) in crafting an unconstitutional law that they knew was unenforceable, or should have known. Gun owners, I suppose, if I may give them this much credit, knew the law was unenforceable and knew it went further against their rights than they were willing to give up. We now have polar opposites warring with each other. A despotic, tyrannical government forcing itself upon the people who place equal value on rights as do the tyrants in the Connecticut legislature on its power. A perfect storm.

This is where the media steps in, by order of their controllers, to play one side against the other. As an example, we read in the Hartford Courant, that the editorial staff wants law officials in Connecticut to find all those who refused to bow down to the whims of a tyrannical government, located and locked up.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced. (emphasis added)

Evidently the Hartford Courant thinks Connecticut’s new law is enforceable, or do they really? Notice that the newspaper demands the state exercise an authority, one that evidently is believed to have been given along with background checks. Recall, if you can, that when all the hoopla was about strengthening background checks and having them all run through one federal database, the promise was that background check information would not be retained and used against those seeking to purchase a gun. So much for government honesty and those in the media who do the bidding for the government.

J.D. Tuccille of Reason.com says:

Laws rely, almost entirely, on voluntary compliance, with enforcement efforts sufficient for a tiny, noncompliant minority. If a large number of people to whom a law applies find the law repugnant—and a majority of a group, consisting of scores of thousands of people, constitutes a large number—than the law is unenforceable, no matter how many politicians and newspaper editorial writers think it’s a swell idea. Governments that try enforcement, anyway, will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.

If Tuccille’s statement above is true, then isn’t it logical to ask, beyond of the obvious and shallow debate of who’s right, if the law that Connecticut passed was intended to create, “a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy?” Of course it was. And the media makes sure the ball is sent back and forth from one side to the other to perpetuate the “brutality” and ensure the “declining legitimacy” of the government, their authority and unreasonable rules of law.

The people now, more than ever, see government as brutal, overreaching, unfair, tyrannical in nature, etc. This, of course, by design. This isn’t relegated to just Second Amendment issues. No way! Pick any topic and any issue. They are ALL controversial, pitting one side against the other, either government against the people or people against the people. In this case it’s government against the people.

Connecticut gun owners’ actions will, more than likely, spread to other states, other gun owners. This, I also believe, is part of the bigger plan. If the global ruling powers can begin small and escalate the issue to encompass a majority of American gun owners, to get them angrier and more pitted against the government and their overreach and stripping away at constitutional rights, the more easily they can implement their plan of disarmament.

Earlier I stated that the United States Government and all those that control that government, have not had great success in taking bold action to disarm Americans or through the chipping away of Second Amendment rights; at least not in a timely enough fashion. I also said that the last deterrent to dictatorial rule, i.e. a One World Government, fascist in nature, controlling the existing New World Order, is Americans and their guns. They must be disarmed and the only way this is going to happen is by force.

If the media is successful enough, they will incite rioting, at any time, for any cause. If the action of Connecticut gun owners appears effective enough, other states will willfully begin to outwardly defy government laws aimed at gun ownership. The goal here by the global powers is to get American gun owners and anyone else who will follow, including those paid for and planted to create violence, to take to the streets in protest, the United States Government is well prepared to declare a national emergency.

All the years since Obama has been in office, he has, through legal law making and executive action, set the stage so that when a national emergency is declared, he becomes dictator. Then, guns will be forcefully taken from Americans.

The other option I spoke of is invasion by another country or countries, of which I am not ready to discuss.

Now is the time to be watchful and see how effective what happened in Connecticut will be in motivating others to defy the authority of strong-armed government. Will it end up in street violence? National emergency? Time will tell.


Day 60 – No Executive Orders


It is now Day 60 and President Barack Obama has not made public, on the White House website, the details of the 23 executive orders he pretended to sign. The man is a liar and con artist.


Judge Jeanine on Second Amendment, gun control and how taking guns away from innocent citizens does nothing to deter crime or cut down on violence.

Below is a video showing what has happened in Australia after that government has confiscated guns. People in this country say it can’t happen here and yet, it is on record from the fascists in this country, many of whom now run the government, who repeatedly state the ultimate goal is complete gun confiscation.



Day 46 – No Executive Orders


Day 46 and still there are no executive orders, with President Obama’s detailed plans, for gun control. 46 days ago the president committed fraud, premeditated dirty dealing, to mislead this people.


Here’s a very well done video of a gentleman explaining to any interested viewers the differences between a sport rifle (AR-15) and an assault rifle (M-4) by definition. The explanation and the demonstration are done very effectively but I am still left with the same question as I always am. Why do we continue to “compromise” our Second Amendment rights so that now we cannot easily obtain and own that assault rifle that we so matter of fact state has been banned in 1986? The cry is constant: Hunters don’t need assault rifles! Maybe true but limiting my ability to protect myself against criminals and bully tyrants like Fascist Feinstein, is criminal. Understand the differences in weapons but doing so should NOT be cause to limit my rights.

And speaking of limiting MY ability to protect myself and family, consider the Firearms Equality Movement, whose goal is for gun manufacturers to limit to law enforcement agencies the exact same limited weapons the governments have declared on citizens. In other words, if people cannot own an AR-15, then law enforcement can’t either. Interesting concept.

Here’s a list of other links concerning the debates and events occurring about destroying our Second Amendment:

1. National Journal I believe wrongfully asks if the big “movement” to ban guns has dried up and gone away. The basis for their claim is that the most effort and noise is being exerted by pro Second Amendment. Don’t let the left’s quietness lead you astray.

2. Glenn Reynolds, in an opinion piece found in USA Today, says that the NRA is more instep with American people than President Obama – which might not actually be saying much. Which reminds me. Readers should be very aware with whom they may decide to throw their support to in the fight to save the Second Amendment. Many organizations are just crisis pimps looking for or maybe even helping to create a crisis in order that they can play on your emotions to gain access to your bank account. Proceed with caution.

3. And speaking of organizations that like to beg for your money during a crisis, The Blaze tells of one such rally in New York to protest the fascist-style gun laws imposed upon the citizens there.

4. Finally, “Say-it-Ain’t-So” Joe Biden is out giving advice to women and gun owners on how to protect themselves without a so-called “assault” rifle. Smokin’ Joe says that if you want to keep somebody out of your house, use that double barrel shotgun and just shoot through the door.

So, with those endearing thoughts from our VEEP, I’ll leave you with this thought:



Day 45 – No Executive Orders


The photos below say it all. 45 days ago President Obama falsified his actions to the American people through smoke and mirrors, faking the signing of 23 executive orders in which he was going to bypass the legislative process in order to take away Second Amendment rights of the people. All this president has ever done on this is provide the people with 23 ideas of what could be done, the details of which would be found in the actual orders; which either don’t exist or the President is covering up somewhere, preventing the people from scrutinizing the details.

45 days and we wait as nothing is posted on the White House website concerning 23 executive orders.

For those interested, the Washington Times yesterday provided a 12-page (pdf) entitled, “Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the United States” as presented by the Second Amendment Foundation.





Day 43 – No Executive Orders


If it hasn’t become obvious to you yet, since President Obama’s reelection, that his aim is to instill as much fear, deception, divide, racism, chaos, unrest…..or ?, it’s time to open your eyes. Presently, while absolutely nothing is being done in the White House (think the fabricated fears of sequester), the Campaigner in Chief is traveling around the country and….doing what I might ask? Near as I can tell, he’s trying to scare the hell out of people by attempting to tell them if the republicans don’t agree to make you give President Obama more of your money, we’re all going to pay heavily for that. Really? Aren’t we already paying heavily for this man’s political bent? Cannot Americans understand the intent of this ideologically twisted man? HE WANTS CHAOS!

He used the same tactic 43 days ago, when he headlined in a dog and pony show, reminiscent of the traveling medicine shows, telling the American people he was signing executive orders to limit and control guns (people). Whatever he signed one time on a piece of paper was evidently no more than toilet paper. When a president signs executive orders, those orders are made available to the people in order to read the details and be able to honestly disseminate the content and intent of the order. There are no executive orders and therefore any commentary made about these fake orders is dishonest and also fraudulent.

Where are those executive orders, Mr. President? Why were they not real? What are you hiding? Why have you lied? Is it just another one of your campaign tricks to anger more people? Do you want them to take to the streets and kill their fellow man? And then what will you do? Declare a national emergency and then become the dictator you want to be?


The New York Times, like the vast majority of ignorant, emotionally disturbed people, spends all of its time and energy writing about how law abiding citizens get their guns and not one word printed about what is being done to stop the damned crooks and murderers. Makes no sense, but then again, it isn’t intended to make sense now is it.

An outdoor writer from Maine has taken the right approach. Now here’s a man who isn’t caving in to nonsensical political pressures to reach a “compromise” (spelled giving up more of your rights to placate the communist left). He’s asking that the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed weapon be repealed. As George Smith puts it:

The concealed carry permit system is illogical, expensive and a waste of time and resources.

I personally do not and never have possessed a permit to carry concealed. I vowed I never would because it is nothing more than a glorified gun registry. I concur with Mr. Smith. Repeal all concealed carry permits now!

And finally, this video should turn your stomach. Politicians and useful idiots/True Believers preach that it is the gun owners who pose a threat to law and order. Really? In this video you will witness that it is NOT the legal permit-carrying man that poses any threat to anybody. Instead, a Florida law enforcement officer threatens to shoot a man if he moves because he’s done nothing wrong except the officer notices the man is carry a gun. (Warning: The police officer, paid with taxpayer dollars and is a representative of the people of Florida, uses F-bombs throughout the beginning of this video. It is obvious the officer is improperly trained, suspect to panic reacting and is a danger to himself and others.)

All you really need to watch is like the first minute. The rest of the time is spent with the officer telling the seemingly innocent man that he broke the law by brandishing a weapon.

For those interested, the gun laws of Florida say the following about whether a permit holder, carrying a gun, has to inform the police.

790.06….The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court.