TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

To protect against tyranny

BY Dave Ross  on December 21, 2012 @ 10:08 am (Updated: 10:36 am - 12/21/12 )

AP: d9ad2c0f-2536-4b5f-89a3-8c3d72b90f97
Anxious parents reeling in the wake the Connecticut school shooting are fueling sales of firearms enthusiasts who stock up on assault rifles nationwide amid fears of imminent gun control measures. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
All over the country, the guns are flying out the door.

Not just any guns, but as you might expect, the very guns the President wants to ban on the grounds that in the wrong hands they are just too deadly.

Now obviously these gun-buyers are not going to shoot up a classroom. But you might ask, why DO they need such weapons?

Well let's think back a few days, when Texas Representative Louie Gohmert answered that very question.

"A free people should be an armed people," said Gohmert. "It insures against the tyranny of the government if they know the biggest army is the American people, then you don't have the tyranny that came from King George."

It's what the founders believed. It's why they insisted on a Second Amendment 225 years ago. But we should at least take a moment to think through what that would mean today.

It would mean that some Americans are arming themselves so that, if necessary, they can fire upon members of the U.S. military. Should our government go rogue, and dispatch blindly obedient soldiers to march through our neighborhoods to round us up, we will ambush them - just as the Taliban would.

That's what I find weird - Americans arming themselves so that if necessary, they can kill the very soldiers that we now thank for their service at every opportunity.

But these soldiers are the sons and daughters that we raised, aren't they? If the order ever went out to round up and enslave the citizenry, wouldn't our sons and daughters say 'hell no' or would we really have to shoot at them?

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (168)


  • Add A Comment

  • Howdy wrote...
    "the guns are flying out the door"
    December 21, 2012 10:36 am
    I doubt most of these people are wannabe militia members. My guess is that there's quite a few short term investors. Like those guys that clamor for limited edition basketball shoes to sell on ebay. Can you sell firearms on ebay?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    this factualy true (I checked) is why so many of us think liberals and Dems dont care about poor black inner city people. Wake up-the D's want your vote-that's it!
    December 22, 2012 1:26 pm
    The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been ***446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. ***62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly, no Obama crocodile tears either. For those of you too dense to get the point of this post, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Logical you are absolutely correct
    December 22, 2012 7:39 pm
    My home town of Flint has had 58 murders so far of young black men. Where are the tears from Obama? The city has a safety factor of 1 out of 100. Where are the tears for your peeps O?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AtheisticallyYours wrote...
    Body Count?
    December 21, 2012 10:42 am
    What IS the EXACT "body count" of those people in the U.S. who have been killed by this "tyrannical government" that is believed to exist? And the RISING BODY COUNT of those who have been killed by sick minds with UNINHIBITED ACCESS to assault weapons? Exactly. Use of guns agains "tyrannical government": ZERO! Use of guns against innocent civilians in public places, and ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: ENDLESS, and getting HIGHER BY THE DAY!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    AtheisticallyYours
    December 21, 2012 10:40 pm
    What IS the EXACT "body count" of those people in the U.S. who have been killed by this "tyrannical government" that is believed to exist?

    I bet you don't believe in seat belts and birth control either, do you?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wallie wrote...
    Body Count?
    December 22, 2012 9:32 am
    Actually the body count is on the decrease. Please check the FBI stats. Either way one body is one too many. As far as "UNINHIBITED ACCESS", I think we have plenty of laws on the books. Bad guys are just that.....bad guys. They will get guns. One proven way to stop them is with a gun. Read the account of what happened in the Clackamas mall shooting (not the main stream media account) and you will find that a concealed weapons permit holder (Nick Meli) may have just helped to influence the final body count.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Basso wrote...
    Get informed
    December 22, 2012 7:44 am
    before you spout off. There are gun laws on the books. Some of us realize the path our country is on is leading to a tyrannical government. It won't be the military, it will be the police who are armed better than our sons and daughters in the military. It will be people like you who will join the gestapo.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • everythingalaska wrote...
    Don't bet on it.
    December 22, 2012 12:08 pm
    Don't bet on Law Enforcement to stand by a tyrannical government. Won't happen. Neither will most of the military.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @everythingalaska
    December 22, 2012 1:59 pm
    Why do you say that. History has proven otherwise. Why did the military follow Hitler, Stalin, etc.??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ConservativeThinker wrote...
    Some people would be well advised ....
    December 22, 2012 5:37 pm
    If you think that the military or local police are the tools of the government... think again.. and study both Russian (Soviet) and German (Nazi) secret police and militaries and their creation.... It was like minded people that the government called to service to aide in the riddance of an imaginary foe.... When a government decides to cross the line.. they could use commercials/Internet/Mass (liberal) media outlets - that cause use to look at everyone suspiciously - maybe a few TSA commercials might come to mind.... Stalin was able to co-opt the Liberal educated middle to upper class to create warfare - removing the seated government - which when he was done - he killed the educated... History folks - history.. it always gets repeated... and we never learn.... Just a thought..... `
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rock-the-Boat wrote...
    You must no know our history Atheistically, are you from France?
    December 22, 2012 9:15 am
    Our war of Independence was fought by well armed citizens (minute man) and scripted service men. 25,000 died to fight a tyrannical government. Our Civil war was fought by well armed citizens many using their own guns. 620,000 killed, over 1 million wounded. This to fight a break away tyrannical government that wanted to keep slaves. I think those two beat out any innocent civilian deaths by madmen with guns
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    So, Dave. You thought guns would be different from twinkies?
    December 21, 2012 11:04 am
    Make something unavailable, and you create an artificial demand. Just basic economics.

    To your second point, though. Rep. Gohmert is simply paraphrasing the arguments for the 2nd Amendment 225 years ago. .. After all, had not each household in colonial America had firearms - and somewhat on a par with those of the British army - we could never have achieved independence. ... And even today, unlikely as it may seem, a sufficient number of liberals, conservatives and middle of the road people would band to oppose tyranny.

    You wonder that Americans would kill their sons and daughters in the military? ... The better question would be: Would those sons and daughters fire on their own parents? ... Whenever that answer throughout history has been 'NO', tyranny has fallen.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    That's what I find weird - Americans arming themselves so that if necessary, they can kill the very soldiers that we now thank for their service at every opportunity.
    December 21, 2012 7:23 pm
    So what's your solution Dave? Instead of thank them for their service spit on them like a progressive just in case they might later blindly support a tyranny? Sorry, not going to convince me to be a progressive. Progressivism is for mindless sheeple.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @rational
    December 22, 2012 7:37 am
    I have only one question for you. Are you really rational, or are you just peeing in everyone's coffee that you think doesn't agree with you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    FormerMarineSgt
    December 22, 2012 8:36 am
    As I have 2 posts within the 4 above your question perhaps you can indicate which points you find difficult to grasp.

    The first post was a response to Atheisticallyyours who essentially asks where the tyranny is...which shows he doesn't grasp the concept of protecting against something. Apparently he wouldn't see the use of birth control because the woman wasn't already pregnant.

    Or, are you responding to my commentary on progressivism and their penchant for hating on our military and the irony of Dave's confusion regarding how one might currently express thankfulness to our soldiers who put life and limb at risk but if they decided to support a tyranny and start rounding up citizens in the streets that would represent a change that might justify a change in attitude toward those soldiers were they to support a tyranny?

    So which point are you having difficulty in getting?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Realitycheck wrote...
    rational
    December 22, 2012 9:06 am
    That went way over FormerMarineSgt head. And I seriously doubt he was a former marine too, because marines half a more realistic head on their shoulders then he is displaying quite often here. Unless he is the troll that just loves to get a rise out of people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @realitycheck
    December 22, 2012 11:10 am
    Sorry dude, it didn't go 'way over my head'. What it did was make me point out just how far he will go in the very direction he is complaining about in order to make his point and degrade anyone with an opposite opinion. I see that you may just follow that same bandwagon with the 'And I seriously doubt he was a former marine' comment. I would have to guess that you and the other right wingers on here just can't handle that a former Marine has the brass to dare to step outside of the right wing mantra and think for himself.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    AND......if you know ANYBODY
    December 22, 2012 7:43 pm
    that was in the Marine Corps, Once a Marine, Always a Marine. The fact that he calls himself former makes me think he was in the Air Force or something.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Ron J
    December 22, 2012 9:22 pm
    So all you guys have is insults about my handle eh? It's too bad that you haven't got the courage of your convictions to mount a good conversation where you can make a point and show me the error of my position without falling to cheap insults and being utter failures at accomplishing anything else. And as far as the 'FormerMarineSgt' thing goes - I chose to differentiate myself from current active duty Marines by choosing to add 'Former' to my name. And have no fear - my life doesn't depend on whether you clowns who can't resist being fools approve of me or believe what I am or was. I still bleed Crimson and Gold. I am and always will be a Marine. And I use 'Former' to show that I am no longer on active duty or in the reserves. You don't like it? Go piss in someone else's coffee.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Ok Former,
    December 22, 2012 11:59 pm
    I meant to say Coastie, ok? Sorry your knickers got wadded up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AKAF wrote...
    the use of former when used with Marine normally means...
    December 24, 2012 12:52 am
    they left the corps in disgrace. Once a Marine, always a Marine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @AKAF & @RonJ
    December 24, 2012 7:20 am
    You two got nothing else than to insult eh? No valid arguments to support your point, only inaccurate, false, and exceedingly pathetic cheap shots. It clearly shows that you have no confidence in the positions you take because all you can't stay on topic when challenged by someone who's raising valid points that are contrary to your own. I pity your closed minds and your inability to have real conversations with people. Your husbands must constantly be ashamed of you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @rational
    December 22, 2012 11:03 am
    I was responding to the attacking hyperboly that you decry in others, yet exhibit yourself. That's where the peeing in the coffee comment comes from. How about exhibiting the careful respect and attention to facts that you ask from others?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Looks like the people are speaking out.
    December 22, 2012 12:19 am
    President Obama's election (the first one) caused a run on guns and ammo , and after "media hyped" shootings same thing.At the same time recalcitrant Progressives are denying the need to harden the security of schools , even do simple things , or even consider or think about security. And lastly the Second Amendment is NOT for "shooting soldiers" and it is not for duck hunting ..The Second Amendment is for preserving Liberty.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Ron_Spins..
    December 22, 2012 7:50 am
    First of all, I'm a gun owner and I respect the 2nd amendment. However, comments like yours make we ask serious questions. (I am NOT for taking guns away). ---- That being said, I have never been able to properly understand the 'guns are for preserving liberty' line. Yeah - I understand the whole 'it makes it possible to revolt against improper tryanny' thing, but I don't understand the obsession in our country over possibility of this mythical 'tryanny' actually happening. It's never even come close to start to happen, let alone actually been tried. Add that the military in this country is our own people. There is no way that a majority of our own people that happen to be in the military would ever allow this 'forced tyranny' to occur in this country. Why? Because the people in our military are not faceless, soulless non-human entities that will blindly follow orders to attack and enslave thier own people. They are your neighbors, your friends, your sons and daughters - your fathers and mothers. THEY ARE US. They are no more willing to perform this 'tyranny by force' than you and I are - even if they are ordered by our politicians. And politicians get voted out of office. Because of the ever changing political winds in this country, I see no real chance of the 'alignment of evil happening just right, so that it would be able to bypass the Constitution long enough to become this 'all powerful soulless entity' that folks tell us they are defending us from when they speak of this aspect of thier 2nd amendment rights. Maybe someone can help me understand how they feel this 'tryanny' where armed revolt would be necessary could actually happen here. And please - don't lecture me with rhetoric. I have a serious question about the position these folks take.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Sarg
    December 22, 2012 8:08 am
    Great post. I think people feel that our government is getting way too big and therefore, way too powerful. With every extra tax dollar taken from we the people and every new law passed on we the people, we lose a little bit more liberty. And the sad fact is, it is happening right before our eyes, evry single day. Think about it . It the old saying" I love my country, but I fear my government". Do you see our government getting any smaller? Do you see less laws & regulations being passed? Do you see less taxes being extracted? I don't?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @maplefish
    December 24, 2012 7:21 am
    Thank you for a very rational response. While I will absolutely agree with you on the laws, regulations, taxes point, I differ somewhat on the 'fear my government' point. While I do 'fear' (more accurately dislike) the seemingly constantly increasing laws, regulations and taxes, the word 'fear' is overused to the extent that with some (many?) of the right wing, it is misused to the point of extreme hyperboly - 'fear my government' being used as if our goverment was ready -today- to use it's 'jackbooted thugs' to stomp down the doors to our houses when in reality thier issue is merely that they don't like Obama and the things he's managing to get passed through Congress. Obama's not a great President, but he's not worse that 'Joe Average President' when you get down to reality and throw out all of the rhetoric and political shenanigans that either side throws out there.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    formermarineSgt.
    December 22, 2012 10:29 am
    WELL SAID!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    formermarine perhaps
    December 22, 2012 7:47 pm
    it's because that there are so many guns in this country is why it has never been fathomed. Ya think!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    I can't believe the amount
    December 22, 2012 7:45 pm
    of big haired mouths on Television that are always saying how it's about hunting rights. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO HUNT! it's not in there, really.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • C"mon Man wrote...
    Second Amendment
    December 22, 2012 1:52 am
    I went to a Christmas party tonight where I heard a LT. Firefighter complain about the NRA response, and the host of the party , sound-off about her dislike of guns. As a guest, and a Navy vet, I said that the 2nd amendment was established to allow the people to protect themselves from a over powering government, but they were claiming that the laws are outdated. I stand by the founding fathers.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    Those that want to restrict gun laws.
    December 22, 2012 3:44 am
    Are the Criminals. Easy to figure out dave. Check the Facts more guns less crime.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Honus wrote...
    Would they fire on us?
    December 22, 2012 4:13 am
    History says yes. All a government has to do is demonize a class, group or religion, and you're on your way. Governments use their miltary against their civilians all over the world, all the time; they always have and they always will. Examples abound, including those of the American variety. To think that we're so special that it couldn't happen here is dangerously naive. Having said that I'd also like to point out the complete absence of an assault weapon in the photo accompanying this article, and to also politely direct AtheisticallyYours to research the scorched earth policies of the North during the Civil War. (There are more recent examples as well.) Oh, and consider the fact that you're a member of a very unpopular group with a great deal more to fear from tyranny than most. You may enjoy repeating history, but if it ever comes down to them versus us, I'm shooting back. And your lack of knowledge regarding the historical treatment of athiests in this country is obvious. Please, do some research.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @honus
    December 22, 2012 7:59 am
    Yes, we know that governments all over the world use the military against thier own people. However, our country is quite different than any other country in this world. I truly want to understand this mentality where people are so afraid of this soulless, faceless tryannical government that's never happened here, that is very, very unlikely to happen here. And please, remember that the civil war happened not because the North became a tyrannical government, but because the South decided to seceed from the US government to satisfy thier political grievances and started fighting to make it happen. That's 180 degrees away from the tyrannical government arguement.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cop4hire wrote...
    Formermarinesgt you can't be that naive can you?
    December 22, 2012 8:35 am
    Here are just three examples of what our government is capable of doing to it's own citizens. JUST 3! Massacre at Ruby Ridge Kent State shootings Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation That took me all of 3 minutes of Google to find these. For someone who made Sgt in the worlds most powerful and professional military organization with out a basic knowledge of our history is beyond me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    @cop4hire
    December 22, 2012 11:14 am
    Spot on, anyone that want's understanding it's just a little research away..but some of these folks have an agenda and any amount of back and forth is a waste of time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @copforhire
    December 22, 2012 11:15 am
    I asked for no rhetoric, yet you give me it.... I am well aware of our country's history. I am aware that -sometimes- our government does incredibly stupid things. It would take an idiot to not understand this and know about incidents like you point to - and I'm no idiot. We may disagree on things, but I'm not an idiot. Small incidents involving small numbers of people and relatively small numbers of government personell are far, far different from the massive 'tyranical government' rants that come from many folks who use that arguemnt to defend thier interpetation of the 2nd amendment. We all recognize that the government occasionally (ok - sometimes often) does stupid stuff. In each of the cases you identify as 'tyranical government', they were relatively isolated incidents, were stopped on thier own, our people and govermnent learned from those failures and mistakes and -at least theoretically- it's harder for those kinds of failures / mistakes to happen again. As a people, we also learn to not let our government repeat those kinds of mistakes. Add that the political climate changes rapidly, which changes the people in power and therefore the actions that government takes changes. It's not a cumulitive effect because of all of these complex things happening at the same time. you didn't answer my question though - where is this tyrannical government and how does it actually threaten us? - particularly since the military won't blindly attack our own people because those people in the military is US (our neighbors, our friends, our families, etc.). In many of the other countries that use the military to control it's people, the people are NOT a homogenous group of people blended together like we are. They are rival ethnic groups, rival tribes, groups that naturally distrust or hate each other and those governments exploit that in thier own military to achieve this 'tyranny'. It's extremely unlikely that this will happen here. That is unless you can provide facts that disprove my understanding of our society.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @Jarhead
    December 22, 2012 8:38 am
    Tyrant is very unlikely in the USA TODAY, but it has happened. ... As President, John Adams and the Federalists passed what were known as the Alien and Sedation Acts. .. Essentially outlawing decent - even making it a crime to criticize his administration.

    And before the Civil War, Kansas had not one, but two competing governments, each prone to slaughter of settlers supporting the other side. .... Forward to WWI. Wilson placed many restrictions on American Germans, citizens or not, and confiscated crops 'for the war effort'. ....... And lest we forget the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

    Granted, stuff like the 'Patriot Act', Homeland Security and TSA pale by comparison, but had there been other 9-11s in the months following the Twin Towers, might not many more liberties have been suppressed? ...... We may feel secure in our liberties, but we might be only one major crisis away from oppression.

    .

    Very unlikely, but anything that has happened before can happen again.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ron prevost
    December 22, 2012 11:22 am
    I get that it's happened -in small amounts- in the past. We are not the same people we were at that time. We are not so easily swayed to that kind of mass foolishness - as it witnessed by the fact that government didn't allow the idiocy of the racial and ethnic laws and discrimination that would have occurred against 'arab looking' people that the minority of extremists in this country wanted to allow (some even demanded). The point being that even during the older events you point out, they were transitory and short lived. They were pushed out by the political processes of the time. That political 'changeover' still occurs in this country and happens without the need of bloodshed to make it happen. That's why I ask the questions I do. I'm not stupid or intentionally ignoring anything - I'm still wondering why people are sooo afraid of this happening that they act like it's about to happen tomorrow - when it's so unlikely to ever occur that you're more likely to get mauled by a bear, bit by a shark and hit by lightening all on the same day than ever see that kind of actual tyranny across this country. (No, there is no hidden agenda in my thoughts on this - I am asking genuine questions. I have no problem with people owning guns, I own some of my own and I would die to defend this country and what it stands for - even from 'enemies from within' if need be).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    FMS : Are we really not the 'same' people who won WWII?
    December 22, 2012 10:18 pm
    Germans today are certainly not the Germans of 1936. But the Germans of 1936 were not the Germans of even 1916 (when Jews were lauded for their service during the Great War).

    I said highly unlikely, BUT nothing of modern civilization is so far from savagery that we are immune from reverting. ... Another example I should have noted was Gov. Huey Long of Louisiana during the Great Depression. His 'share the wealth' plans appealed to a lot of people and he might seriously have challenged FDR, had he not been killed. And a Long presidency could easily have devolved to a dictatorship. ... And Richard Nixon (granted in a drunken state) considered creating a crisis (nuclear war?) that would have precluded his resignation.

    .

    Sure, it's hard to imagine an American dictatorship today, but it's a bit more likely than you would want to believe. .... But thanks for your support should the worst come to pass.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    I do not think a American Dictator is far fetched. Our citizens have more sheep than leaders, more takers than makers, too many lousy parents, drug addicts and weaklings.
    December 23, 2012 1:20 pm
    We certainly are not the same people that saved the world in WW11. Not even close. We are not the same people that waited in long soup lines during the depression and behaved in a law abiding fashion. To think major changes couldn't happen here in the future is fool hardy!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @logical open mind
    December 24, 2012 7:40 am
    We indeed are not the same people we were in WWII. However, we still have the same will, the same fortitude and the same 'fire in the belly' that we had then - that won us WWII. The difference now is that we are not so blindly willing to follow what we are told - we question more. We demand to know what's going on - but we step up and we still will remain victorious when someone tries to crush who we are. However, to blindly think that 'government' is this evil entity that WILL devour us through tyranny and such is extremly foolish.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ron
    December 24, 2012 7:32 am
    We have the right to disagree on the issue - and I appreciate that you're willing to disagree without being a scum sucking attack dog. We both agree that an individual President can do alot to try to create this 'tryanny' and do the wag the god trickery, but it takes little for Congress and/or the Supreme Court to pull them back from the abyss to get things right again. As the pro-gun folks say - you can't stop a dedicated crazy person from going over the edge every single time (in reference to your Nixon comment), but you can limit the options they have when they do decide to go over the edge. And even as Marine who is no longer active duty or reserve (I apparently can't use 'Former' to describe the fact that I got my honorable discharge almost 30 years ago because that seems to upset some weak minded people on here), I know that the vast majority (as in nearly ALL) American military personell WILL NOT follow an illegal order to attack, shoot, supress or otherwise endanger American citizens. We are (I was) trained to follow orders quickly and without question, however we are (I was) taught that we are NOT to follow an illegal order. Attacking our fellow citizens would consist of an illegal order in 99.99% of all cases, therefore the vast majority of our military would not follow such orders. Myself, I would be one of the first to step up and be counted should we EVER end up in a situation where our military was used illegally against our own citizens.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Ron
    December 22, 2012 1:36 pm
    I hope you meant dissent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    oops
    December 22, 2012 9:59 pm
    ;-)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Time Is Now wrote...
    Tyranical government can exist
    December 22, 2012 9:05 am
    think back to the 50's with the anti communist, McCarthy hearings. Had this movement gained more momentum, it could have become a tyrannical government (controlling what you think, prison for the wrong beliefs) that had the support of many people in this country. A charismatic leader with the right agenda is all it takes. Luckily, with our 2 party system so fragmented today, they can't agree on anything, but times change and over time, anything can be possible.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Time is Now
    December 22, 2012 11:28 am
    Ah - the point is that during the 50's McCarthyism died because the people rose up in a non-violent way and acted politically to destroy this attempt at a very, very narrow implemenentation of tyranny. That's the very point I'm trying to make. The system, as fraught with problems as it is, it works to keep the radicals (from any side of any subject) from gaining too much control. A good example is today's extreme right wing has been in control of the Republican party to the extent that Congress cannot get anything done, and they've done a marvelous job of a massive campaign of hate and discontent against the sitting President. They lost because Joe Average American has gotten tired of the stuff that they are pushing. Joe Average American voted the 'other way'. Four years ago, the 'power' flip flopped over from right wing republican to left wing democrat, and policies changed. in four years, it may flip flop back to Republican. Bloodlessly even when it's a massive change of direction, policy and so on. That's what keeps our government from becoming this 'tyrannical' thing. At least that's my opinion.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    It will be Forigen Soldiers.
    December 22, 2012 4:22 am
    Not American Soldiers dave that will be orderd to take Americans guns. Ten out Ten times a goverment that took the guns of the Citizens. Created Genocide shortly after. There is documentation of this by a jewish film group.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    The Founding Fathers
    December 22, 2012 5:34 am
    Understood Human Nature, which is why they created the Constitution and it's framework. It's to protect the citizens from Dictatorship and emotional whims. To remove, add, or change amendment takes time and a super majority consensus. It removes the emotions and forces people to take time to think

    Listen to Obama's speech - "If Congress won't do it, I'll issue an executive order".

    Obama also understands Human Nature - people like you Dave and Luke do not.

    A leader won't have followers unless he can provide protection and basic necessities.

    Obama had to create a threat so that he could protect you Dave.. Bush already used Radical Islamist... Obama had to create his own - define himself... thus he demonized the rich... and seriously think about this Dave.. do a little research.. Obama is the "Rich", EVERYONE OF OBAMA's associates are "THE RICH".. for one second don't you question his words?

    Next Obama pursue "EXACTLY" what our founding fathers warned us about.. "EVERY SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER CITED THIS". "Social Dependency".

    It demoralizes a society and creates a slave state. Look at Venezuela.

    The Founding Fathers understood that a strong society consisted of many independent people and leaders - not a dependent society.

    So, back to the 2nd amendment.

    You're the submissive whelp of society - you believe otherwise.. but seriously Dave, How on Earth are the successful and rich going to hurt you and others? You're a dupe of society and the Gov't. You don't create an original thought, but simply repeat the words that are delivered.

    How is gun control going to change anything Dave... seriously.... Obama has recognized that it's another item that he can Demonize... it empowers him, allows him to prey on emotions... Gain strength and control..... I'm sure that Obama feels that he's taking care of Americans.. much like the parents that doesn't want their children to leave home - In the end, it's creates a weak, helpless society.. much like the child... forever dependent upon the parents..

    Gun Control is not an issue, it's a manufactured demon intended to create dependency.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cdbtx....
    December 22, 2012 7:59 am
    "Obama had to create a threat so that he could protect you Dave.. " --- HOW did Obama make this a threat to keep his popularity? He was not involved in causing the slaughter of these children and adults. He is looking at ALL angles, not just pulling a knee jerk reaction like so many on BOTH sides are doing. He's pulling together information from ALL sides in order to try to find a real answer to this problem. Unlike the 'ban the gun' types or the 'let's reduce the issue to simplistic rhetoric and feel good actions' like proposed by ol' Wayne 'Obama's secret agenda is to destroy the 2nd amendmentd during his second term and my only proof is that he's done nothing about guns during his first term!' LaPierre...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Cdbtx
    December 22, 2012 8:07 am
    Brilliant!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cdbtx..
    December 22, 2012 11:30 am
    "Listen to Obama's speech - "If Congress won't do it, I'll issue an executive order"." === and if Congress doesn't like what Obama's done - they can either reverse it by passing a bill or they can impeach him. Obama (or Bush before him) issuing an executive order is by no means implementing a tryanny upon America.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @FormerMarineSgt
    December 22, 2012 4:15 pm
    I swear you are dumb. The office of the President is sworn to uphold the constitution of the USA and not write executive orders to NOT uphold it. This is by definition tyranny. Tyranny definition - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Rick (4)
    December 22, 2012 9:31 pm
    Wow. We disagree and therefore I'm 'not of sufficient intelligence (the damm sensor software won't let me repeat the word you used for some reason). Amazing how tolerant you are of differing opinions. It's too bad that you can't think further than tossing insults because if you did, you'd realize that what I said was that IF the President does go too far with an executive order, Congress has the duty to force him back in line with the Constitution by passing bills to over-ride him or they (or we) can take it to court and get whatever unconstitional step that was taken reversed. You act like it's being done in a vacuum that there are no safeguards to stop. Please, go read your Constitution a little closer, then go pay attention to political history and you'll see that what I was saying is still true - even if a President goes unconstitutional with an executive order. Believing that a President is capable of invoking tyranny without others stopping him is flat out silly. The founding fathers were smart enough to put in checks and balances to prevent any one of the three branches of government from going off and invoking tyranny without being pushed back into line.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }