TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
AP: 9cd15c97-00a8-41cf-be42-1f78be2f5115
Veronique Pozner, left, embraces a young girl as she arrives at B'nai Israel Cemetery for burial services for her 6-year-old son Noah Pozner, Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, in Monroe, Conn. She wants to know why she hasn't had the opportunity to speak out about new legislation regarding gun control. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Who should really be discussing gun legislation?

BY Dave Ross  on January 11, 2013 @ 1:59 pm (Updated: 3:38 pm - 1/11/13 )

The Vice President held a meeting with the NRA, and the result is, the NRA will not only lobby vigorously but unleash the mother of all membership drives.

The NRA says since the White House decided to reopen the gun control debate in response to what happened in Newtown, paid NRA membership has jumped by 100,000 to 4.2 million.

But there is at least one other group which wants to join the discussion. It's not a lobbying group - it's the family of 6-year-old Noah Pozner, who was killed in the Newtown massacre.

His mother Veronique, released a statement saying, "As the mother of a 6-year-old victim of a cold-blooded massacre of school children, I am puzzled and disappointed by the fact that I have had no information or opportunity to be heard regarding the upcoming legislative proposal in Washington."

Well, she should be part of the discussion, right? And so should the Herman family.

Donnie Herman's wife Melinda was with her 9-year-old twins when a burglar crowbarred his way into their home in a suburb of Atlanta. She called her husband who immediately dialed 911, and was talking to the cops as she fired her .38.

"Her life was saved, and our kids lives were saved, and that's all I have to say on that matter," said Donnie Herman.

Forget the White House and the NRA - let's have these two families sit down and decide what to do.

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 (38)


  • Add A Comment

  • Howdy wrote...
    All sides...
    January 12, 2013 5:57 am
    should be involved in this discussion. But the fact is, the final decisions will be made by people who are protected by the most elite security force on the planet.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    This was discussed, about 225 years ago
    January 12, 2013 6:32 am
    First step forward: accept the fact that the Constitution of the United States, as amended, (one of the few amendments some on the far right are enthused about),declares that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Why are we in a spin about what type of firearms the government will go ahead and infringe upon the right to own, despite the very clear language in the Second Amendment?

    Guns outlive their owners. Even those owners who die of natural causes. Before long, there will be more guns than people in the United States. Right now, there are supposedly about 2 guns for every 3 people nationwide, and in some states (I believe Idaho is a specific example) there are already more guns than people. Those are the *legally purchased* guns that the government knows about. The actual number is of course much, much, higher.

    We really need to be discussing how we are going to survive in a world where there are more nut cases, more criminals, more angry and desperate political extremists; all with extremely easy legal or illegal access to firearms.

    Put up as many gun laws as we want, and all we are going to do is protect ourselves from people who follow the law. Big deal. People following the law do snap in a fit of rage and impulsively grab a gun to settle an argument- but in general the law-abiding people are not the problem.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AtheisticallyYours wrote...
    So the solution is?
    January 13, 2013 12:08 am
    And HOW DO YOU PROPOSE to keep the guns out of the hands of the whack jobs (and the right-wing paranoids!) then?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Not one of these mass murders
    January 13, 2013 4:44 am
    has been committed by "the far right" or the "right wing paranoids".....no matter how badly you clowns may wish for it.

    To quote Chuck Gould... "I can't imagine anything worse than being the victim of your own negative thinking."

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • twistedsteel wrote...
    La-La land
    January 13, 2013 6:07 am
    Maybe you should start figuring out how to stop the tens of thousands of motor vehicle deaths each year, at the hands of drunk drivers, people driving to fast, texting, people not paying attention,etc. When you figure out that problem, which kills FAR more people, then let's talk about guns.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    To atheistically yours: We are not allowed, under the Constitution
    January 13, 2013 7:43 am
    to infringe on the rights of even the wack jobs or political paranoids (left or right wing). Unless a person has specifically and personally had his rights abridged or suspended by a court of law (in conjunction with conviction for a crime, as an example)we can't simply decide which rights somebody has or has not, based on what they *might* do.

    Make it as illegal for wack jobs or political paranoids to buy guns as you care to. All that ensures is that the wack jobs and the paranoids will buy their guns illegally. They will continue to buy guns, from one source or another.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    CG
    January 13, 2013 5:07 pm
    But what parameters are going to be used to determine who gets to get a gun?Does a guy like Alex Jones who sounds like a total nut job get his RIGHT taken away because of his verbal diarrhea?Do mentally retarded or low IQ people lose the RIGHT to defend themselves because they maybe POOR decision makers?Will a LEFT leaning evaluater set different guidelines then a Righty?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Chuck
    January 13, 2013 6:56 am
    Excellent post! We as a country really need to take better care of our mentally ill. Hopefully, ObamaCare will allocate significant funds to ramp up help for those among us who really need help.....like CH & William Lawn....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • zounds wrote...
    Pop quiz fish
    January 14, 2013 4:04 am
    Who said “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” ?

    Who wrote "This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981." ?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    The future must look bleak if young people continue to attack people.
    January 13, 2013 12:49 am
    The Newtown shooter was intelligent enough to see his life was a dead end.The orange haired Colorado shooter (also intelligent) saw no future ..mean while our politicians (not so intelligent and most of the problem) propose knee jerk gun laws which will DO NOTHING and their children go to schools with Security (guns) while poo pooing the idea that most schools need higher security (NRA idea) look at gun free zones (Chicago and Washington D.C)and how much of a failure they are..Look at how much of a failure President Obama is.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    that's because they're on anti depression meds.
    January 13, 2013 8:10 pm
    it's driving them nutty enough to lose touch with right and wrong and create a false construct in their mind that makes them think it's a good thing they hurt people either with guns or knives or even bombs like the case with columbine, 90 explosives.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ted Bundi wrote...
    I guess I don't get it.
    January 13, 2013 2:41 am
    I thought this was already laid out in the constitution. I have a right to own a gun to protect me from the government.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Not only from the government
    January 13, 2013 12:17 pm
    But to protect Yourself
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    TED
    January 13, 2013 5:09 pm
    OK but would you be happy with a Musket?Because thats the weapon that they had in 1776
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Messiah
    January 13, 2013 8:33 pm
    That whole musket thing has got to be the most ridiculous argument that the lefties trot out. I seriously doubt that the most rabid of the "guns are icky" crowd believe it and only spit it out when every other weak argument has been pounded into the ground.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    If I get a musket , then you give up your computer
    January 13, 2013 10:05 pm
    and you have to use a quill pen and send letters through pony express.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" Jones yelled. "It doesn't matter how many lemmings (mindless followers) you get out on the street begging for them to have their guns taken! We will not relinquish them! Do you understand?" -
    January 13, 2013 5:45 am
    http://youtu.be/AtyKofFih8Y [RWNJ ?]
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    and you want RWNJ to have guns? -
    January 13, 2013 5:52 am
    http://youtu.be/Tf-i3Y5iRYo
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • twistedsteel wrote...
    Let's also debate Dave's 1st Amendment rights
    January 13, 2013 5:59 am
    Sounds great, Dave! But first, let all the people, who you have made sick to their stomach, with your liberal rants debate your 1st Amendment rights.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    twistedsteel
    January 13, 2013 1:54 pm
    Let's also debate Dave's 1st Amendment rights

    Good point, because as we all know, at the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution the only "speech" was written with quill and inkwells, handset type for printing and non-amplified verbal communication...Dave has no 1st ammendment rights, according to the left, because he's not using the equivlent of a musket which the left claims is the only type of firearm covered by the 2nd ammendment.

    OR, the left is being yet again hypocritical...perhaps THE defining characteristic of a progressive.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    good point...
    January 13, 2013 8:15 pm
    since at the time it was only a fight against the gov't tyranny so dave can only talk about that and not guns.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Concerned US Citizen wrote...
    What I want to know
    January 13, 2013 6:09 am
    What I want to know is that are you reporters doing any follow up on some of these mental defectives that are picked up by the police. 1. When arrested for their own or family member's safety are they IMMEDIATLY entered into the FBI'S data base that gets checked when someone buys a firearm? 2. When there is a domestic violence call are the guns in the home confiscated and put in protective custody and both individuals entered on the NO BUY LIST? 3. When a convicted felon is found to be in a house where firearm is found is he immediately arrested and PROSECUTED and sent back to prison? 4. Two days ago a guy trespassed at the Meteor Crater in Arizona hiked to the bottom and jumped into the shaft at the bottom as an offering to the gods. He had to be rescued. Is this guy on the FBI's NO PURCHASE list? He should have been as soon as he was identifyed an individual as troubled as this should not even be able to buy a water pistol. 5. Start watching the movie trailers this weekend. Everyone has guns, explosions and violence in them. These commercials ran constantly during both footbll games. Until SOCIETY does something about the violnce coming out of Hollywood LEAVE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS ALONE as we are NOT the problem. Article on YAHOO today Chicago has 79,000 gang members and you wonder why 500 died in shootings last year.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Concerned
    January 13, 2013 7:01 am
    Brilliant. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on. Not law abiding citizens.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • xplanes wrote...
    Concerned US Citizen
    January 13, 2013 7:24 am
    In any call or arrest being thrown on a no buy list would be in violation of the due process part of the constitution. If you are denied access to your hunting gear in hunting season because your ex or soon to be calls in you made some kind of threat you will get the same abuses you get now with child custody issues with divorcing parents. You are protected with due process for a reason. Liberal methods of solving problems always seem to require sacrificing someones constitutional rights no matter which one. Also, taking both parties guns would be stupid upon stupid. Now you have disarmed a person that is the recipient of a domestic violence assault. Just the person for whom we need to keep the access to gun purchases un-infringed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Concerned citizen: A no-buy list is like kissing your sister, and is *not* constitutional
    January 13, 2013 7:36 am
    All the no-buy list would do is ensure that the wack jobs, political extremists (from all sides), and career criminals would not have any *legal* access to a gun. When somebody puts a bullet into your brain, it really doesn't matter much whether the gun that fired it was purchased legally from a sporting goods store or illegally from some crack addict in an alley.

    The Second Amendment is very, very clear. Government shall not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. [hmmm, although it doesn't say "buy and sell" arms, just "keep and bear", hmmm]. Unless you advocate stripping away the Constitutional rights of Americans because somebody, somewhere, is afraid of something somebody else *might* do (in which case none of us have any rights we can meaningfully defend) the no-buy list is unconstitutional.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Lack of Credibility
    January 13, 2013 8:12 am
    First you stand a far greater chance of winning the lottery than you do of being killed by a gun in America

    I'll stand by my statement that those such as Dave Ross are emotional predators - virtually on the same page as those that emotionally attack their spouses... the use emotion for personal gain.

    Those that are the exception are those that "HONESTLY" strive to protect human lives.

    More people die each year from accidental falls than guns, More people die each year as a result of people under the influence.

    The rally cry for gun control is that if it saves one life it's worth it

    Yet, not a word from those same people about addressing other dangers that could EASILY prevent deaths.. NOT A WORD... WHY????

    It has nothing to do with saving the lives of others.. it has EVERYTHING to do with Narcissistic ideology.

    If there were one IOTA of concern about the welfare of others by these ideologs we would be reading about the daily tragedies and see efforts to save those people.. But NOT A WORD..

    It's not hyprocrisy.. it's a defective mental state... ideology trumps reality.. Innocent children die as a result of a driver under the influence.. the response from the emotional predator... "Oh Well".. can't do anything about that...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    yea...."If it saves one life it is worth it"
    January 13, 2013 8:48 am
    If they really believed that mantra they would protect our borders. We are much more in danger of being hit by a drunk illegal alien without insurance than being killed by a firearm....unless of course, we are buying crack in Belltown, then the odds are about the same.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Yet, not a word from those same people about addressing other dangers that could EASILY prevent deaths.. NOT A WORD... WHY????
    January 13, 2013 2:06 pm
    Because preventing death is not the goal of the progressives...removing rights from law abiding citizens is...specifically the 2nd ammendment rights. For the progressives this is a power play, not a life protecting effort.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    who closed the mental hospitals put all the mental ill out in the street? -
    January 13, 2013 9:26 am
    that great republican circus clown Ronald Rea "guns" !!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }