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

  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Facts. Read on...
    December 22, 2012 5:08 pm
    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes as mass homicides by firearm: concealed-carry laws. The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally. Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun. You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago. Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.) In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject. The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped. If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds? It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died. In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology: – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.) – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three. – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two. – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two. – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • thelesserof2weevils wrote...
    As Ben Franklin said...
    December 22, 2012 5:21 pm
    "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    I find it hilarious that a political organization that promotes the killing of babies in utero...
    December 22, 2012 5:23 pm
    ...is so concerned about dead children. You can't have it both ways...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    @ 5-0
    December 22, 2012 6:04 pm
    Let me begin by saying that I don't believe in any sort of gun control. I believe the issue would be better served by adequate mental health options for the mentally ill among us. That said I find it hilarious that a political organization that wants to out law abortion doesn't want to provide healthcare for the pregnant mother, doesn't want to provide hospital care for the child and mother during birth and doesn't want to to provide any sort of healthcare for the baby once it's born. Young working mothers don't often get healthcare from their employers if they work entry level jobs. Why do you think young women who become pregnant want to have an abortion in the first place? It's because they can't afford to have the child.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Why do you think young women who become pregnant want to have an abortion in the first place? It's because they can't afford to have the child.
    December 22, 2012 7:07 pm
    Then they should NOT get pregnant in the first place. I know it's hard for liberals to comprehend, but medical science HAS discovered the cause for pregnancy and it can EASILY be avoided by HAVING SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! But no. So much easier to suck babies out of mothers and dump their remains in a garbage bag.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    So you're saying
    December 22, 2012 7:46 pm
    that you used protection every time you sex with any girlfriends before becoming married (even the first time). Wow, you're under control more than I ever was.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    yes Forest I did-it wasn't tough to do. Put a fricking rubber in your wallet and a bunch in the glove box.
    December 23, 2012 1:34 pm
    If u dont have protection, both do oral. I wanted to have a kid ON MY TERMS, NOT ON THE CHICK'S TERMS WHEN I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HER LAST NAME. Why is that so difficult?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    HPD 5- no kidding, there are planned parenthood spots all over the state. A women can get free birth control of all types, even if they make $1900 a month or less.
    December 23, 2012 1:32 pm
    Birth control is everywhere and cheap. Plan B is for the mourning after. These losers have unprotected sex because welfare, food stamps, medicais and housing subsidies for these losers beats working. and then they put our statisticaly crummy, unproductive off spring. How noble---NOT!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Let me begin by saying that I don't believe in any sort of gun control. I believe the issue would be better served by adequate mental health options for the mentally ill among us.
    December 22, 2012 7:19 pm
    On this we agree. It is not a matter of guns. Guns, by themselves, do NOTHING. I know. I have a few. They are actually quite boring and just quietly sit in my safe as time passes. They have not "gone off" by themselves and they have only contributed to the loss of one human life, but he was intent on doing me harm, so I hold no guilt. As to mentally ill persons having access to guns, I am obviosly against it; once someone is diagnosed with any mental disorder, they should be eliminated from any right to have a firearm. But to blame guns is short sighted and notihng but political pandering. It's like blaming gravity for plane crashes or trees, for falling and striking people. I'm sure a mentally ill sicko could kill 20 people in a school with a machete too.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 22, 2012 8:12 pm
    I'm guessing when you refer to a "political organization" you're referring to the GOP. I'm not a republican, so I can't speak for them, but I can address the underlying point. Goverment is the worst conduit of money from it's source to the need conceived by man. If the left was concerned about helping pregnant mothers, just born babies etc they'd agree with classical liberals in wanting that help to come from private sources and leave the government out of it. If you really cared about the kids then why squash the amount of help they can receive by running it through a corrupt, incompetent and inefficient organization like the government?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Rational
    December 22, 2012 8:51 pm
    I was mimicking 5-0's statement. I personally am for universal healthcare as every first world country is except for Turkey and USA.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 23, 2012 7:25 am
    I prefer solutions that work over ones that just make you feel good. I'm also against government violating the constitution. Because the government is acting illegitmately, and in a non-sustainable fashion I'm against the Fed meddling in my healthcare...but enough folks have voted to remove our freedoms...so we have what we have, an unworkable, unsustainable and illegitimate operation. And I don't give a rip about the rest of the First world...if they're so great why don't progressives move there?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    rational wrote...if they're so great why don't progressives move there?
    December 23, 2012 8:32 am
    If we outvote you, then you will have to live by our rules. It's called democracy. If you wish to live in a conservation society dominated by religion, you can move to the Middle East.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Democracy
    December 23, 2012 12:27 pm
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.Liberty is a well armed lamb.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 23, 2012 9:42 pm
    We don't live in a democracy, and for the exact reason Ron_Spins pointed out.

    Where have I said I want to live in a conservative society or one dominated by religion? I want to live in a free society...which we have lost to your 50% plus not able to think past their own greed.

    I can guarantee you that the middle east is no where near my ideal society...it is, however, the progressive's idea of an ideal soceity because they struggled to shape it to the way it currently is.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Dave you've answered your
    December 22, 2012 7:40 pm
    own question. It will never happen in this country because we simply outnumber the number of soldiers the country has.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Robert_C wrote...
    Just Curious....
    December 22, 2012 8:47 pm
    At what point is randomness no part of our lives and to what point should we expect government to contain it. That's right government cant because it's random and unexpected. Get over it and take it for what it truly is, a god awful random event in which no one can explain or have control over end of story. Sadly any new gun regulations will not bring those poor children and adults who lost their lives back, nor will it change the next random event that is surely too happen. Frankly if this shooter hadn't killed himself he probably never would have been sentence to death most likely as he would have been found insane and that in itself is insane. This in my view is why we have the violence of today as we are far too lenient on crime and the punishments allow far too many bad guys to take the risk verse punishment time and time again because they have everything to gain and usually very little to lose. Maurice Clemmons in Washington state prior to his murder spree in parkland had at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and I believe 8 in Washington state and yet he was still released on bail before he murdered 4 police officers. He bragged about how he was going to kill police officers and yet nothing was done, Governor John Kasich just granted clemency for a 1983 murder because he was deemed too fat to legally hang. Speaking of children, how about the catholic church and repeat child sex offenders who are constantly being set free to rape and kill again. So let's throw this propaganda of it's for the safety of our children and people and concentrate on the things we can control like said examples and then you might start seeing the utopia liberals seem to think we can achieve here on planet insano. People get real.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    The American Civil War was a hoax concocted by the NRA to sell guns!
    December 23, 2012 6:14 am
    This would be a logical follow-up to your argument Dave. (Loosen the pony-tail dude)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    One final thought
    December 23, 2012 8:29 am
    If guns don't make you safer, why are all those guys in black suits surrounding the president, packing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Amen - and a Merry Christmas to all
    December 23, 2012 9:19 am
    Except to our atheist friends, a merry secular humanism winter day off work to stuff yourselves with family and friends.

    Peace.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Merry Christmas back at you Ron
    December 23, 2012 1:21 pm
    Besides I'm not an atheist. I just can't believe that an all powerful being would be so petty that he would send in a shooter to kill our children because we took Him out of our schools (as Mike Huckabee and his ilk maintain).

    Peace to you as well.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    @Forrest
    December 23, 2012 11:13 pm
    God did not "send" a shooter in to kill our children!God "allows" Satan to do things in his "fallen world" ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Honus wrote...
    The funny thing is...
    December 24, 2012 12:30 am
    if you try to picture a world with no gods and no devils, you end up with the same situation that you have if you think the ultimate good guy occasionally lets the ultimate bad guy have his way. No, God didn't send a shooter in. Neither did he "allow" Satan to wreak havoc on that school. These things will happen whether there's a god that "allows" it or we're here on our own. Recognize that fact, and get up off your knees. Either that or pray harder that this doesn't happen again...God doesn't seem to be listening.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • simp12 wrote...
    Ask David Koresh
    December 24, 2012 12:01 am
    and the kids that were killed by the ATF and FBI ask Randy Weaver when his wife and child were killed by an FBI sharpshooter! Dave are you that blind?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    David Koresh
    December 24, 2012 12:11 am
    Waco was a battle over taxes.Fully Automatic guns were legal in Texas if you registered them and paid the taxes.The A.T.F thought he had some unregistered guns.So the government cooked up phony charges to assault the "church". Ruby Ridge was just as bad the government tricking Weaver into sawing a shotgun barrel and transferring it without a license.These are great examples of why Big Government can't be trusted.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    What it means?
    December 24, 2012 5:11 am
    It means this, that all you Left wing Parrots just remain at home on your perch's and continue to be brainwashed by MSNBC, the Obama ministry of propaganda, and all your mindless Obama worship and be dependent upon someone to clean up your cages every day or so and we Americans will clean up your Useful Idiot ways of voting and we will get our nation back from your masters and back from the disaster that is this regime and your beloved Dear Leader.

    Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! That baseball bat, that car, or gun, is only an inanimate object. It is the Human and all the hate and Satan that is in her or him that will perform the Evil. (Or make you Parrots re immaculate your Dear Leader!) No gun ever jumped up, loaded itself removed it's own safety and started fully automatic firing at crowds. Especially since it is a SEMI AUTOMATIC!

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