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

  • mlettini wrote...
    Tyranny
    December 22, 2012 12:00 pm
    This is as ridiculous as I can imagine - guns against the government that protects us. I doubt it. Where are these conspiracy people coming from? Are the Southerns still p***ed off about loosing the Civil War? The second amendment was created when we had one shot muskets - today we have multi shot arms. Maybe we should revise the second amendment to be in line with modern times.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @mlettini
    December 22, 2012 12:17 pm
    Could it be possible, that we are still free today because we have the right to bare arms? No one wants to take on armed citizens to take control of the government i.e. dictator.

    I do agree with you on the fact that the second amendment should be revised to modern times, US Citizens should be able to legally own the same types of weapons the US government gives to the US Military.

    As an example, lets say that a President declares himself above the law and becomes a dictator. He uses bribes, luxury items, etc to get most of the US military to support him. That is when US citizens would take up arms against the government and that is why our founding fathers put in the 2nd amendment. Are you aware that the Bill of Rights was demanded by the individual States as they did not want the US Government to become too powerful and dictate over the states? The States would not have ratified the US Constitution without the first 10 amendments i.e. Bill of Rights.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    Some state the US Military would not fire on US Citizens
    December 22, 2012 12:11 pm
    Sorry, but a lot of them would blindly follow the orders of their superiors. They are trained to follow orders. Of course not all of them would do so, but IMO most would depending on the cover story being given to them by their chain of command.

    I am retired from the armed forces and would never allow the 2nd amendment to go away. I will defend the US Constitution as I was sworn to do. As others have said, there is a legal way to change the US Constitution and until that happens the 2nd amendment stands just like the rest of the US Constitution and amendments. Obama does NOT have the authority to change gun laws with an executive order and to do so would be tyranny.

    Here is an idea - How about we just enforce the laws that are currently in place? How about we change the law back to that the mentally ill can be forced into treatment? Banning guns via a law will have the same effect as making drugs illegal and non-US citizens crossing our borders illegal. Yep, these laws only apply to honest people law abiding citizens and the non-law abiding citizens/non-citizens could care less about the laws.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    "How about we just enforce the laws that are currently in place"
    December 22, 2012 1:33 pm
    The NRA is actively undermining that capability any time they can if it affects firearms sales which is their bottom line. There is exactly one reason why there has not been a head of the AFT for 6 years and it's the NRA.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    read this-factualy accurate article to see how ell laws are working-
    December 22, 2012 1:38 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" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @Drool
    December 22, 2012 2:07 pm
    The NRA does not stop the enforcement of existing gun laws, but they do lobby against changing them. BTW, it is ATF and AFT. The NRA has not stopped the appointment as it was elected senators that stopped this.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Rick
    December 22, 2012 8:08 pm
    soldiers are trained to "blindly" follow orders. It is obvious you have never been one. A blatantly illegal order would not be followed except by the most brain dead, present company included.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @RonJ
    December 22, 2012 9:28 pm
    I am retired military and yes people blindly follow orders all the time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    Attention gundamentalists: What part of the words, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" don't you understand?
    December 22, 2012 12:30 pm
    Or do you believe that the founders, who wrote the Constitution in a time of muzzle loaders, could see into the future? Do you believe that they'd be OK with everyone owning not just high capacity, rapid-firing assault rifles, but RPG's and flamethrowers?

    Those are "arms," too, are they not?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Hayduke
    December 22, 2012 12:32 pm
    Do you belive the founding fathers could imagine TV, radio and the internet? if not then we should remove your free speech rights because, after all, times have changed.

    Do you see how idiotic the progressive argument is? The fact is, progressives do not believe in rights. Is anyone asking for RPG's and flame throwers? No...you are building a straw man argument. If your side was honest perhaps it'd be met with more acceptance.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @Hayduke
    December 22, 2012 12:58 pm
    IMO, I think the founding fathers would want the citizens of this country to legally carry arms (guns) used by the US military. I don't know if they would agree to us carrying RPG's, Nukes, etc. but this is not the question at hand. Concerning flamethrowers, most of already own these already i.e. aerosol can and a lighter. We can also own Mace (pepper spray), Tasers, Knives, etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saltchucker wrote...
    Hayduke
    December 22, 2012 1:28 pm
    Every single able bodied man in this nation is already part of the militia whether they know it or not. Constitutionally we are required to stand up and defend our nation in times of need. A real big part of our history and what makes this nation the freeist on earth.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • deltta wrote...
    Hayduke
    December 22, 2012 4:28 pm
    Do some reasearch on the Federalist papers and who wrote them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    They had the most modern
    December 22, 2012 8:10 pm
    arms available to them, so your argument is irrelevant.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hey, Duke - what part of .."The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." don't YOU understand?
    December 22, 2012 10:45 pm
    'Arms' also includes swards, knives, spears and crossbows. .. As 'arms' evolve to different forms, so to do our 2nd Amendment rights of ownership.

    Whatever merits assault rifles may or may not have, they are not as advanced vs a Colt 45 as the 38 revolver with smokeless gunpowder is superior to the one shot black powder muskets and pistols of the late 1780s. ..... RPGs ??? Perhaps more a bomb than an arm, but.... the amendment DOES use the words 'not be infringed'. But couldn't the people of Hungary have use a few in 1956?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Ya Ya Ya Dave will tell us how it really is (joke)
    December 22, 2012 2:39 pm
    Yes im rolling my eyes, Just like he had put a deposit on the disposal fee of the battery in his car that another generation will be responsable to dump. I will find some else to look up to for advice, Its worth what I paid for it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Hi murr
    December 22, 2012 4:08 pm
    The Prius battery is recyclable "all of it" and you are able to rebuild them too by replacing a bad cell.Dave really is cool.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gunther wrote...
    Protection
    December 22, 2012 2:46 pm
    An acquaintance heard someone knock on her door. When she didn't answer they proceeded to try and kick the door in. She was hiding in the closet calling 911. It took the police 10 + to respond. Luckily her husband beat police and they ran off. The average community has a ratio of 1.5 police officers per thousand. It doesn't take too much before Law Enforcement resources are exhausted. Not all of us can afford to live in a gated community where there is a priority for Law Enforcement. My family will always call 911 and allow Law Enforcement to handle, but I will and am prepared to protect my family and property with my semi auto shotgun.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gunther wrote...
    Hollywood
    December 22, 2012 3:06 pm
    Where is the shouts from the liberal community calling for Hollywood and the makers of video games to stop marketing violent movies and video games towards children? Why do we allow car manufacturers to make vehicles that are designed to drive 120+ per hour? Why is it that Libs always want our guns but justify having them for themselves? What about the legislator from Chicago who forgot he had a handgun? Rosie Odonnell's body guard? Sean Penn? Or how about all those music video's glorifying gang violence, firearms, etc? Why don't we confiscate cars from DUI offenders? I think more people are killed by Drunks driving automobiles than by firearms. Perhaps that one hits too close to home for our legislators and liberal friends.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    More Guns More dead . . . .
    December 22, 2012 3:15 pm
    the better trained will win out. The clowns running to buy gun will be the first to check out. And unless you can over take an Army you will be next.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • deltta wrote...
    CH
    December 22, 2012 4:31 pm
    Remember, While under the UCMJ you are required to obey a LAWFUL order.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Bare arms or bears armed?
    December 22, 2012 3:29 pm
    I think our FF's frowned upon both.

    Except when one Adams was starting another that is.

    Now bears, they were another story.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    You don't be a jerk about grammar
    December 22, 2012 6:59 pm
    in an internet thread unless it is over and over again. It happens.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    blogers that make an issue about grammar and speling have no counterpoint.
    December 23, 2012 1:28 pm
    A post on this site IS NOT A COLLEGE PAPER OR BUSINESS REPORT. I can't for the life of me understand why some nit pick over this-????
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fladiggity wrote...
    From a red-neck perspective...
    December 22, 2012 3:44 pm
    I agree with your sentiment Dave, but there are two issues here. 1. Gun ownership is our defense against tyranny. As a red-neck, I don't imagine the government waking up one day and issuing tyrannical orders, you are right, our cops and soldiers would stand up against it. However, given time and patience, you can slowly boil a frog to death. In the same way, as a conservative, I see little by little our country making small unnoticed steps towards tyranny. Why do I want to own an assault riffle? Not to hunt or play with, but so that I have a weapon that could defend against an armed government, they have assault riffles tanks and bombers, all I want is an assault riffle. Do I think tyranny will happen in my lifetime? Honestly, no. It's a possibility though, and I fear this tragedy is being used as a political play by well-intentioned people to limit freedom. At the end of the day, I have the right to be prepared to defend the constitution and my household. 2. Gun laws won't heal the mentally depraved. According to the FBI, baseball bats are the #1 weapon of choice in murder cases, should we ban baseball bats? Mentally depraved human beings who want to kill, will kill. Be it bombs, knives, airplanes, etc. It sickens me, but gun laws won't heal this problem.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HappyPappy wrote...
    fladiggity...
    December 22, 2012 3:59 pm
    Nice!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Sure would have been nice if we all would have been as fired up when...
    December 22, 2012 4:55 pm
    Bush proposed the Patriot Act, TSA and Homeland security. Those are as big a threat to our freedom as gun control.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 22, 2012 8:03 pm
    I agree, the Patriot Act, TSA and Homeland security are dangers to our freedom. I was more vociferous against some than others, but I didn't buy into any of them far enough to support them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    How about Obama NDAA of 2012?
    December 22, 2012 9:30 pm
    I disliked alot of what Bush did, but Obama has continued all of Bush's bad things and added his own to the list.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    They pose a bigger threat, forrest, because
    December 22, 2012 10:52 pm
    a republican President ask for them and a democrat (and republican) Congress blindly went along - and still do. .. Civil and social Libertarians saw and see the dangers, but too few understand the rights being infringed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }