TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
AP: c9cb7864-ba90-4cec-8968-47b3eeafca18
Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., points to a chart as he speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, during the committee's hearing. Supporters and opponents of stricter gun control measures face off at a hearing on what lawmakers should do to curb gun violence in the wake of last month's shooting rampage in Newtown, Ct., that killed 20 schoolchildren. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The gun debate makes some progress

BY Dave Ross  on January 31, 2013 @ 5:54 am (Updated: 6:05 am - 1/31/13 )

Originally it was a Founding Fathers argument: that an armed citizenry is the only sure protection against an out-of-control government.

That has never stopped the government, by the way, from putting down the various armed rebellions that have broken out during our history, including a pretty big one in 1861, but that was in fact what the founders believed, and it's become a big part of our national psychology.

And actually, considering how many people believe the Founding Fathers argument, I'm surprised America isn't more heavily armed than it is. If the idea is to prevent tyranny, you could argue the citizenry should be able to match the army - gun for gun, grenade launcher for grenade launcher. Drone for drone.

It's remarkable that the gun lobby has pretty much conceded that we only have a right to own guns, nothing more.

But now - look at the other argument that's taking center stage. Even as the NRA called for putting armed cops in every school, Senator Lindsey Graham was warning police departments to expect LESS federal money for cops, not more, and then went on to say that because it might take longer to get a cop, well, that's why he himself has an AR-15.

"I would be better off protecting my business or my family if there was a law and order break down in my community - people roaming around my neighborhood - to have the AR-15 and I don't think that makes me an unreasonable person."

Right - So that when a weakened government lets the social order break down, he can protect his family. Which is the exact opposite - of the original argument!

So I guess the way this would work is, we the citizenry arm ourselves to fend off the government when it gets too strong, and then, once we've emasculated the tyrants, we turn the guns on each other to protect ourselves from the social collapse that follows.

Either way, we are going to need a lot of guns.

Apparently , somewhere along the line, we became Libya.

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 (80)


  • Add A Comment

  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    I used to want an A4 skyhawk
    January 31, 2013 6:58 am
    but I've heard they're pretty unstable. Now I'm thinking something like an A-10 would be a better choice. Spoken like someone who just doesn't get it, or is just having some sarcastic fun.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    It's not just Dave,
    January 31, 2013 7:28 am
    The whole line up is one liberal, leftist, socialist after another....telling their stories that are "emotional" to them. I can't be sure but I would guess to be employed at their radio facility you must be a card carrying liberal democrat with pictures of the anointed one and Pelosi in your wallet/purse.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Supreme Court's error aside, the original intent of the second amendment.
    January 31, 2013 8:27 am
    Back in Topsfield, MA, there still stands a rebuilt barn, originally built by my gggggg...grandfather. He was Captain of the Topsfield Militia, and the civic history synopsis records that he "left his plow in mid furrow" to ride to the battles of Lexington and Concord.

    The historic, social, framework upon which the founders relied when they began amending the Constitution was the model of their recent past.

    Every farmer had some low-powered shotgun, old blunderbuss, etc he would use for killing wolves or taking the rare potshot at somebody stealing from his chicken coop. Gun ownership was common. Restricting gun ownership would have been unthinkable- like making it illegal to own a horse, a cart, or any other agricultural implement.

    "Arms" (the term used in the Second)were in a different category than guns. "Arms" were kept in a common "armory", and were reserved for the use of the town militia. The armory was often heavily built, and could double as a defensive fortification in case the town were ever attacked. Every able-bodied male was expected to turn out and drill with the militia on a regular basis. The firearms were more powerful, more accurate, were fitted for bayonets, etc. "Arms" included primitive grenades, cannons, and other weapons more suitable for warfare- not the common garden variety pop guns used for the individual defense of a farm.

    Points being; the Second really did intend to give the citizens access to the same firepower that the government had ("arms")... but in an organized militia . We fail to recognize the historic difference between guns and "arms". While the Supreme Court decision that chose to ignore all the language about an "organized militia" in the Second is at least currently the law of the land; back when the founders were alive nobody assumed an individual right to own the most powerful weapons designed to be used for faster and more efficient killing on a battlefield.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    well...
    January 31, 2013 8:41 am
    if that's your interpretation, then we must all give up all our guns except for a single shot shotgun and a single shot .22 and then we must beg and grovel at the feet of our local governmental agencies to every so graciously grant me my right to go get a higher power weapon when the crap hits the fan. Wonderful...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    circuitfr:....not right. You should have access to the very same weapons as the government...
    January 31, 2013 9:05 am
    within the context of an organized militia.

    You see, the question may not be either one of "can have" vs. "can't have", but rather the conditions under which the "people" have access to the most serious weapons of war.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WashingtonCitizen wrote...
    What will it take for Dave to get a clue?
    January 31, 2013 8:31 am
    First the gov't teet has to run dry and this has a fairly high probability. When that eventually happens, all the nursers on welfare etc will riot. Dave will have one day of notice while these idiots burn down their own neighborhoods. Then Dave will finally wake up and get it when they start marching through his neighborhood demanding to take his home and belongings.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    So true Dave!
    January 31, 2013 8:40 am
    "Once we've emasculated the government tyrants, we turn the guns on each other to protect ourselves from the social collapse that follows" So let's get rid of the murderous 2nd Amendment and hand over our guns. And we can just let progressives turn this nation into their authoritarian state, with a progressive dictator at the helm. Oh wait... this is sounding an awful lot like Libya. But better to live as slaves to your regime then to die fighting for freedom. Great idea Dave...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Looks like AJ is floundering around pretending to be me again
    January 31, 2013 11:34 am
    You post nothing like me, Flounder.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • R L M 456 wrote...
    The Crusader for Common Sense
    January 31, 2013 8:43 am
    Has lost his mind

    time to retire

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    What I'd like to know is...
    January 31, 2013 8:44 am
    ...who is it that the Obama administration thinks Homeland Security will need to use the 1.8 billion rounds of ammo they had the department purchase in the past 9 months?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    @ SeattleNative
    January 31, 2013 8:49 am
    Probably Obama himself. He knows they will need it to keep the populace in line.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Truly making any progress?
    January 31, 2013 8:49 am
    Then the Dear Leader would let this fallacy of Gun bans=reduced crime. Since the Dear Leader will keep pounding away for something, NO progress whatsoever has been made!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    You can't make war with your citizens
    January 31, 2013 8:54 am
    if you run out of bullets
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }