South Dakota Gun Mailer IDs Soft Second Amendment Stance

South Dakota Gun Owners recently sent out a mailer about the weak responses of South Dakota Dist. 35 House candidate Jack Siebold.

Siebold is running as a Republican, but when I checked out his website after receiving his mailer a week or two ago, I began to wonder if he might be running in the wrong party. I saw statements on his website like “I will not allow a single issue to define me” and “I will not go into a debate with a closed mind, on any issue, on any position” and such. He also pooh-poohed surveys and scorecards–the kind that expose liberal politicians–as well as pledges for such things as not raising taxes or upholding values.

This is the kind of wishy-washy, leave-myself-room-to-wiggle-out-later spineless talk we’re used to from liberals (in both parties), not real Republicans. Real Republicans have investigated and researched the issues, thought them out, and as a result they know what they believe and why they believe it. Real Republicans don’t have a problem taking a position on an issue because they usually know what’s right and what’s wrong, as well as what works and what doesn’t.  Only RINOs and Democrats feel the need to pretend to be “open minded” and “moderate” and “mainstream”…so that they can vote–or spew empty rhetoric–with however the popular winds seem to be blowing.

Ted Cruz 2016


Then I read the candidate evaluation for Dist. 35 candidates by the South Dakota Liberty Caucus and found more of my suspicions confirmed.

Now this mailer (below) comes, and I see more evidence that, unlike fellow candidates Don Kopp and Chip Campbell, Siebold seems weak on one of the most important issues in American politics.

I see that Mr. Siebold has a statement on his website claiming of South Dakota Gun Owners:

Woodrow Wilcox


The group is upset because I don’t believe guns belong in churches, schools, city parks, restaurants and libraries. Churches? If we need to carry guns in these places then we have a bigger problem than an argument over whether 2nd Amendment rights are absolute.

Mr. Siebold’s diatribe against the South Dakota Gun Owners (with whom I don’t always agree) sounded a whole lot like the childish preening of so-called lawmakers in the South Dakota Legislature who said outright that their primary reason for voting against a good gun bill was to “punish” a gun rights group–a group that has exposed the poor gun record of many of their RINO buddies in the past. If Mr. Siebold sounds like a RINO already, even before being elected, what might he sound like once he was securely in a legislative seat for the next two years?

Apparently Mr. Siebold needs to pay a little more attention to headlines and current events (an important requirement for someone seeking public office).  If he did, he would know that, yes, even in church, being armed can be very important to defending the innocent from bloodthirsty evildoers. Christ said to turn the other cheek to a personal affront, not allow a lawbreaker to kill you or to allow the innocent to be slaughtered.

About the only problem bigger than those who would interfere in the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in churches, schools, city parks, restaurants and libraries is the moral problem in this nation. Somehow, however, I get the impression from Mr. Siebold that he would be like most RINOs and pooh-pooh the moral rot going on in our society, the same moral rot that is making churches, schools, city parks, restaurants and libraries dangerous places because we are teaching children and people of all ages that they are nothing more than highly developed animals, that there are no moral absolutes, that morality and public life have nothing to do with each other, that we should not teach school children right from wrong, that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are “outdated, and that notions of “right and wrong” are “primitive” and “outdated” and only for “Bible thumpers.”

There really is no good reason to restrict a law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. Law abiding citizens tend to obey ALL the laws, and so are not a threat or danger to anyone.  Lawbreakers, on the other hand, tend to break whatever law interferes in what they want to do. So if they want to carry a gun into a restaurant, city park, church or where ever in order to commit a crime, gun laws are going to restrain them about as much as wet toilet paper.

But gun restrictions will ensure that law abiding citizens are unarmed and ripe victims of the violent lawbreaker.  As much as a violent lawbreaker might want to do harm to someone else, do you imagine he might think twice (or maybe three or four times) before bringing a weapon into a church, city park, or restaurant to do violence…if he reasonably suspected there might be two or three law-abiding citizens there who were packing—and would take him down before he could do as much harm as he’d like…long before police could ever arrive or even be dispatched (I’m former law enforcement–I KNOW how long it can take to get a unit on scene–an eternity, if your life hangs in the balance).

No, we don’t need elected representatives making our laws who will, like those of the past session, use our Constitutional rights as a plaything to punish those who cross them or who refuse to kiss their ring.  We also don’t need people making our laws who don’t understand some rather fundamental differences between law-abiding citizens and lawbreakers…or how invaluable a few seconds (and a few armed good men) can be in a pinch.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • William Beal

    I’ve never understood why anyone thinks it’s a good idea for a law abiding gun owner to leave a firearm unattended when conducting business throughout the day and needs to enter a church, a school, city parks, restaurants or libraries.

    Does Mr. Siebold seriously suggest that unattended firearms are SAFE? Even if one has a gun safe in their vehicle and secures it in one when entering one of these “restricted” areas”, there is more risk that it could be stolen than if kept on one’s person.

  • William Beal

    I’ve never understood why anyone thinks it’s a good idea for a law abiding gun owner to leave a firearm unattended when conducting business throughout the day and needs to enter a church, a school, city parks, restaurants or libraries.

    Does Mr. Siebold seriously suggest that unattended firearms are SAFE? Even if one has a gun safe in their vehicle and secures it in one when entering a “restricted” area”, there is more risk that it could be stolen than if kept on one’s person.

    Disarming a legally carrying gun owner makes NO ONE safer, indeed it creates an even greater risk not even considered by those who wish to suppress the Second Amendment.

  • Jack Siebold

    Bob … because I’m open minded I’m “liberal?” Doesn’t that make you close minded?
    Spineless because I plan on giving every issue a fair shake in committee hearings? You are upset with lawmakers who didn’t give a gun bill a fair hearing due to preconceptions; so why would I be spineless because I promise fairness?
    And just to start a healthy debate (debate is good, helps us form solid positions), if I helped pass a law that stops a church from enacting a gun-free zone, am I then, as the government, dictating to the church? Remember Obama’s foolish ruling that church health insurance had to pay for contraception? I think there is a serious constitutional conflict here.
    I actually supported 9 of 11 SD Gun Owners Association positions. Hell, that’s an 81.8 percent rating … good enough for Reagan if I remember.
    Jack Siebold
    Republican candidate
    District 35 House

    • Bob Ellis

      As I said, it’s liberals who usually like to talk about how “open minded” they are, while conservatives and real Republicans usually have studied the issues, know where they take us, know what they believe and why they believe it. Knowing what I believe and why I believe it makes me knowledgeable, not a straw to be blown about by every neat-sounding but usually shallow argument.

      If you’ve studied the issue of Second Amendment rights, you should know going into a committee hearing whether a bill advances or hinders Second Amendment rights.

      If you’ve studied the issue of abortion, you should know going into a committee meeting whether a bill protects innocent human life or whether it makes it easier to slaughter unborn children.

      If you’ve studied the issue of the threat of Shariah law, you should know going into a committee meeting whether a bill protects us or leaves us open to this oppressive doctrine.

      If you’ve studied the issue of illegal immigration, you should know going into a committee meeting whether a bill helps us deal with the problem or only ignores it.

      If you’ve studied the issue of socialized health care, you should know going into a committee meeting whether a bill advances socialized medicine or protects the people from it.

      In other words, only someone too ignorant to be a good legislator (or too disingenuous to admit their own liberal proclivities) talks about being “undecided” on major issues as if it were a virtue.

      If a church wants to prohibit guns in their facility, that’s their business, not yours or any other government authority. We don’t usually see problems with government forcing churches to allow guns in their facilities, though, do we? It’s usually the other way around: government telling property owners and law abiding citizens that they can’t do with their own rights and property as they see fit.

      You are obviously too confused or ignorant about the issues (or you’ve been listening to too many incumbent RINOs) to be a good candidate. Even beyond the results of this survey, you’ve condemned yourself by your own reaction to it, revealing yourself to lack the necessary convictions and/or grasp of the issues to adequately perform as an elected representative. We have far too many people in Pierre already who don’t know what they believe or why they believe what they believe, or are simply there because they want a say in the division of the spoils.

      If you are truly open minded, you should take the time to research these issues so that you know what is right and what is wrong. Then, once you have a firm grasp on the principles behind the issues, you can come back and run as a candidate who knows what he believes and why he believes it, informing voters as to what they can expect from you, rather than leaving them guessing and only hoping for the best.

      • Jack Siebold

        I’m confused and ignorant? What a sad, misinformed assumption. Still, if I am elected and there is an issue that impacts you, I will listen. I won’t dismiss you simply because we don’t have the same political philosophies.

        • Bob Ellis

          It is not an assumption; it is a fact that you have repeatedly proven.

          If you are really a Republican, we should have the same political philosophies, and you shouldn’t be ashamed or unable to articulate those conservative philosophies. The fact that you are ashamed to or unable to tells me that you don’t agree with the Republican philosophy and/or platform somewhere along the way, which means you are a poor choice to represent rank-and-file Republicans or the Republican Party in general. If a person can’t unabashedly support important Republican positions like defending Second Amendment rights and innocent human life, they aren’t a good choice to carry the Republican banner.

          You should take the time to learn the issues first, then come back and run for office when you can offer the voters of one party or the other a consistent set of principles instead of only a particular letter after your name and a finger in the wind.