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

  • calapete wrote...
    why is it obvious that these people won't shoot up a school?
    December 22, 2012 5:58 am
    did they sign a pledge or something? chuckle.

    how many of these brainiacs are going to leave their guns out to get stolen with no legal repercussion?

    gun owners are the most entitled group in America. They make our nation unsafe, yet pay nothing and take no responsibility.

    End the entitlements to gun owners!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    calapete : why is it obvious that when you leave your house on the morning, YOU won't shoot up a school?
    December 22, 2012 7:08 am
    Where is the pledge YOU'VE signed? ... And, even if you you don't shoot up a school, how about that 7-11?

    If we play 'let's pretend' we can imagine anyone committing any crime at any time. Yet, just because you CAN commit a crime shouldn't mean we take away your rights ahead of time. .. (and, I know, different peoples have been and still are profiled - but that supposed the worst, also).

    What would YOU say if someone decided that freedom of speech or even freedom of movement was making our nation unsafe???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    its a fact that mentally ill can still get guns, even when passing background checks
    December 22, 2012 7:17 am
    so, Daves comment that its obvious all these scared people rushing out to buy assault rifles may end up using them for bad things.

    I never said outlaw guns, I am calling for gun licenses and registration, yearly.

    lets keep better track of the guns we have out there. No more sales by private parties.

    if you "lose" your gun, then you pay a hefty fine. If you lose another gun, you lose your right to carry.

    Gun owners have no responsibility and face no consequences, except when their guns are used against them, which is statistically a lot more likely than using your gun to get the boogey man.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    calapete
    December 22, 2012 8:01 pm
    exactly what responsibility do you have when your stolen auto is packed with explosives and detonated in a school yard>
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    calapete
    December 23, 2012 6:05 pm
    Canada tried a national gun registration. They gave it up. Too costly and they couldn't administer it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CupofJoe wrote...
    I leave my guns on the front porch
    December 22, 2012 7:52 am
    I seriously doubt anyone "leaves their gun out" to get stolen. By the way, it's not a crime to get robbed. But you can start a petition at Walmart to get another law on the books. Good luck.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @calpete
    December 22, 2012 7:54 am
    you must not know any gun owners....ignorant buffoon.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Calapete
    December 22, 2012 8:15 am
    You are a FOOL. A mindless, thoughtless, sheep. It's idiots like you that make our nation unsafe. You are the perfect example of the Obama nation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    you are a scared little girl
    December 22, 2012 10:23 am
    hope the boogy man doesn't get you. Shoot first, ask later. Still crying about getting your butt kicked in November I see. ha ha.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • when reality hits you wrote...
    As if the people could stop the people running the government form doing something that they really wanted to do.
    December 22, 2012 6:48 am
    A majority can arm troops in any way they wish. It can change law for self protection. It can identify and divide out little chunks of the population at will and we would follow along stupidly like children running after the piper because the media is the extent of our perception. It could happen here just like with Iraq. Arming the population is only a temporary measure at best. Weapons are easily removed from a population through cashiering. Those who resist will be out weaponized and find their small arms nearly useless against an army. Minds are turned against the innocent through the media. To be sure, it is much easier and much less costly to take out a chunk of the American population than it would be for Americans as invaders taking out a small weaponized enemy faction in their own country. In America, those few who could find a way to protect themselves against a rouge US would not find their small caliber gear very helpful in staving off tyranny. They would soon turn to improvisation anyway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    Is the first amendment
    December 22, 2012 7:03 am
    outdated too? Well, if you believe what the so called "fairness doctrine." Liberals want to limit the first amendment as well. Is the 15th outdated? Why do you get to tell us which right is outdated and which is not? It is the chipping away of rights Dave that is the issue. It isn't that people NEED a certain gun. It is that they have the right to have it. I choose to not have anything bigger than a small piece in my house. I don't need government using a tragedy as an opportunity to force me not to have anything bigger. I want it left as my choice. Stop the do something disease. And calapete, your response to Bill was the ultimate in hypocrisy. What is reasonable about "We won! You lost!" in a discussion like this? Why do you even mention race? You're not that stupid are you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    Lick my boots
    December 22, 2012 7:24 am
    not so nice is it.

    November was a message, and sore losers like Bill are not over it yet.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 2112 wrote...
    You're right Calapete
    December 22, 2012 10:02 am
    The bloodsucking parasites are now the majority in this country. Congratulations.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    at least my Senator does not make a public deal with Lobbyists
    December 22, 2012 10:24 am
    Boehner is going to lose his job as speaker, then lose his job in 2014. good riddance.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    pete you seem like
    December 22, 2012 8:02 pm
    your the one that has the hair up your butt, even though your "man" won. And what is it with you and dividing people into "our" side and "your" side? Seems like your the one STILL making an issue of race. You'll still have an attitude against whitey after 200 black men have been elected, which, by the way, I find Barack Obama a poor example of a black man. Allen West and Herman Cain,now those are Black men. Obama is a cream-puff wannabe.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @daveismenotyou...
    December 22, 2012 9:36 pm
    "Is the first amendment outdated too? Well, if you believe what the so called "fairness doctrine." Liberals want to limit the first amendment as well. Is the 15th outdated?"------- I seem to remember that Right wingers / republicans do the very same thing. Just last year there were Republicans wanting to overturn the direct election of Senators, and return that right to state legislatures. I guess that amendment is outdated too. That and the right to abortion, the right to burn a flag in protest, and the right to define marriage as anything but between one man and one woman are all things that the right wing / republicans wanted to either remove from the Constitution or change it to add things so that we would be forced to be more right wing and nothing else. So - don't play the 'you filthy libs want to change the Constitution' unless you want them to flip the card right back at ya.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cw1997 wrote...
    Seriously Dave
    December 22, 2012 7:13 am
    So the 2nd Amendment is a fluid document subject to the whims of liberal whack jobs and what might be politically expedient. So would that hold for the 1st or the 4th or the 5th and while your thinking about it Dave - maybe you might want to think about other big issues like the Thou Shall Not's they are probably outdated as well. Sorry Dave it's time for you to maybe take a break, you've become way way too self important.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WashingtonCitizen wrote...
    The reason "We the People"....
    December 22, 2012 7:25 am
    would be successful in overcoming our own military IF the (rapidly becoming Socialist)gov't were to turn them on us is quite simply a matter of numbers. Remove the children and adult sheeple from the US population of essentially 330 million, and every soldier would still be facing odds of 100:1 . I don't care if you are the baddest Navy SEAL to ever walk the face of the earth. HE will end up dying facing those odds. Now apply the same logic to the fictional sceanario of China deciding they wanted to take over the US. A foreign army of over 1 billion from a country with a population of 2 billion compared to our total poulation of 330 million. US citizens would get our butts handed to us. I can think of many more groups than gun owners that pay nothing and receive entitlements. Blacks in this country should start worrying about the Hispanics taking over because they are and quite rapidly. A Hispanic will most likely become POTUS long before another black man ever sits in the white house again. The 2nd Amend ensures the rights of the 1st Amend stay intact. The order of the Bill of Rights written by our Founders was not happenstance. It was by importance. It is very similar to how the Founders wrote in the Constitution that the President had to be a Natural Born Citizen. The Founders did not want the King of England to send his son over to the US to knock up one of our women. Then have his grandson eventually become POTUS with allegiance to the King. When the Founders wrote Natural Born Citizen, they meant both parents needed to be US citizens. However they failed to spell that out exactly. Nobody's perfect.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Michigander wrote...
    This argument can be used elsewhere
    December 22, 2012 7:25 am
    Ok... So the right to guns should be revised because founding fathers could not have foreseen this. If we use this argument, then we open a big door. Do we limit free speech? Founding fathers couldn't predict copy machines, mass publication, Internet, TV, radio, video cameras in phones (heck... Phones). Yet people can create videos about Allah that incite riots in Muslim countries, videos blaming catastrophes because god is mad so we should protest children's funerals, or even harassing some one on a blog to the point someone commits suicide. Using the arguments used against the second ammendment can easily applied elsewhere. Do you really want to open that door?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rikki Doxx wrote...
    It Means What It Says
    December 22, 2012 7:26 am
    It means the same thing today that it meant when it was written. The anti-gun nuts don't realize it's the street gangs that are causing the most gun deaths. And it's the mainstream media that promotes gun violence caused by legal gun owners, not street gangs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Actually, I just read that "street gangs" don't cause the most gun deaths
    December 22, 2012 9:42 am
    Suicides do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    lawn-suicide is a choice, being murdered is not. Your thoughts on the following-
    December 22, 2012 1:33 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" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    my gun will be used to protect myself and my family
    December 22, 2012 7:54 am
    from ANYONE that tries to harm us!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    "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."
    December 22, 2012 7:55 am
    States were much more independent entities back in the day (by design), so the 2nd amendment was absolutely designed to protect the people from the tyranny of a federal government (as well as foreign governments). The founders also counted on an ethos among the people that would discourage them from violating the liberty of others by going on a deadly shooting rampage. The former implies that liberty comes with a price (collateral violence), while the latter was intended to considerably steepen the price so that violence would be unthinkable. Unfortunately the ethos, under constant attack, has eroded to the point that some of the most sick in our society actually believe that wanton violence is a means to achieve a desired end (whatever that might be). It's impossible to return the toothpaste to the tube.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @mavilla
    December 22, 2012 9:37 pm
    Also part of the state of mind of the founding fathers was that they felt no need for a standing army, so state militias were felt preferable - therefore the first half of the 2nd amendment refers to these militias.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Uilleam wrote...
    Guns
    December 22, 2012 7:58 am
    The "assault style" rifle is nothing more than a semi-auto rifle that "looks" like the military version.It shoots the same as any number of regular hunting rifles. If you put wood furniture on the rifle it would look exactly like other sporting guns. All that black metal just looks cool. The only difference is the magazine (not clip) capacity.It's odd that if I go duck hunting I can only load three (3) shells, but I can put 100 rounds in the assault rifle. Other than some goofy para-military morons that are paranoid of the government, most owners enjoy shooting, target practice and hunting with them. If they ban the hi-capacity magazines, those rifles will still be sold, but with multiple smaller magazines. If irresponsible people have guns, like the mother of the mentally disturbed Connecticut shooter or the owner of the rifle stolen by the Portland mall shooter, nobody is safe. If weapons are not secure It won't matter what is banned, psychos will get them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • R L M 456 wrote...
    Uilleam said it perfect
    December 22, 2012 8:28 am
    a Gun is a Gun

    some people like bling on their car wheels and I-pods charms

    some people like bling on their gun stocks

    That should not brand them as a potential killer

    So if I own a 100 shot clip I am a bad man, but if I have 5 ten shot clips I am a citizen

    First step-kinda like, seatbelt will NEVER be a primary ticket,cell phones will never be a primary ticket,

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }