TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

Most city councils deliberate before empty chairs but not in Oak Harbor

BY Dave Ross  on February 7, 2013 @ 6:44 am (Updated: 7:38 am - 2/7/13 )

At issue was a local law prohibiting guns in public parks, when Oak Harbor resident Luke Yonkman came to the mic and acknowledged he was legally carrying a concealed weapon. At that point, Councilman Rick Almberg objected.

"I make a motion that we ask them to check their weapon with the police."

When his motion failed, the councilman left the chamber, and the latest viral gun rights video was born.

Which guaranteed that at the next meeting a lot of people would show up with their pistols not concealed but openly strapped to the hip.

Everyone was very polite, both pro-gun.

"Mr. Almberg," started one man, "I just want you to know - I have a concealed ham sandwich right here. I don't want you to get up and walk away."

Although there was one flash of anger when one man said, "Sir, my mother was a Jew. My family went to the chambers. I will not go quietly while these too ask me to board the train."

Gutsy thing to say - considering Oak Harbor is home to a Navy base, and he's implying the troops might one day show up in Nazi uniforms.

But as Thomas Jefferson, a man who loved guns, famously said "... what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance."

We will just have to find a compromise. We will have to protect the rights of regular people who want military weapons in case the soldiers that we now thank for their service one day become Nazis - without also making guns available to people who are unbalanced.

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 (40)


  • Add A Comment

  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    more liberal Nazi obsessions
    February 7, 2013 7:02 am
    Of course they won't describe the Federal army that showed up on Ruby Ridge, trespassed on private property, set up cameras, murdered a teenager and his dog, assassinated (by sniper) an unarmed mother holding her baby as Nazis. They won't describe Federal agents who provide guns to Mexican drug cartels as Nazis....in fact they won't even acknowledge it happened.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And good for the old Jewish fellow.
    February 7, 2013 7:06 am
    In Germany immediately after the Great Wat - and especially after the failed Munich putsch of 1923, no one could possibly have imagined that as early as 1933 German Jews - many of whom were war heroes and great patriots in that war - would be treated as less than human and ultimately exterminated.

    Flash back to TJ and again to the present. No one today imagines, as Jefferson did, that our own government could ever be oppressive. ... Of course, by 1797, Jefferson saw the basis of his fears played out in the Alien and Sedation Acts - which essentially outlawed critics of John Adams from speaking .. and to assemble .. and to publish. .......... And, perhaps, it was only the fact the American public was well armed that Mr. Adams did not become King or some other dictatorial entity. And those acts were repealed in 1801 after Jefferson became president.

    The point you keep missing, Dave, is that our rights - be they to keep and bear arms - OR to speak on the radio without fear of imprisonment - are NOT open to the whims of the times. And are NOT open to compromise.

    And that at any time we compromise away some of our rights, we will ultimately be left with none at all.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Question: What are the laws regarding council meetings in Oak Harbor?
    February 7, 2013 7:16 am
    Why would the councilman ask the citizen to check his weapon with the police? If it is legal to carry a concealed weapon into a public meeting or government office in Oak Harbor, then there is no basis for such a request.

    It is not uncommon for some public facilities to ban weapons, either open carried or concealed with a permit. The Federal Courthouse comes to mind in downtown Seattle. I don't think a concealed-carry permit gets you past those metal detectors with a gun of any sort. Same when boarding a plane at an airport.

    Given the way that tempers can flare during public policy debates, I'm frankly surprised that anybody is allowed to carry firearms into a council chamber.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    The law...
    February 7, 2013 8:12 am
    according to their interim city attorney is that firearms are allowed by virtue of the state constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    The 1938 German Weapons Act
    February 7, 2013 7:17 am
    sounds a lot like what Democrats propose for us....except that a government elitist with a name like Feinstein would not be given an exemption.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Paul K
    February 7, 2013 9:24 am
    Please tell us about the 1928 German Weapons Act.I'd like to hear your spin on it
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    They are called amendments because...
    February 7, 2013 7:30 am
    The constitution can be changed. We the people have the power to make amendments, and to unmake them. (see the 18th and 21st amendments). I am still curious why those who are so concerned with tyrannical government oppression, and are worried that the government is trying to take their guns away are not protesting the obvious compromise with the second amendment that has limited U.S. citizens' rights to bear grenade launchers and own artillery pieces (or anything else that falls under the definition of arms). The point I am trying to make is that we are responsible for our rights, and if a significant majority wish to amend the constitution, and change what rights are enumerated, then we can.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    tyranny by the majority
    February 7, 2013 7:43 am
    On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived the minority Jew population of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

    I love these Nazi references, keep it up Dave.

    On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find.

    Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

    The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Democrat Klan violence

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Paul K
    February 7, 2013 9:27 am
    Jews could own guns when Hitler was in power.Where did you hear they couldn't?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Yes, dimes, the Constitution can be changed. .......... And if 2/3 of Congress and the states are willing, we could reinstitute slavery
    February 7, 2013 7:49 am
    Not about to happen. .. And the 2nd Amendment is not about to go away through amendment. ....... The problem is, however, that certain politicians and political groups seek to amend or eliminate the 2nd Amendment by fiat or at best simple legislative vote.

    And we currently have some in Washington who believe your 'significant majority' is anything over 50%. ... And that's NOT just limited to the right to keep and bear arms.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Dave Ross is a "News Anchor"...
    February 7, 2013 8:10 am
    on KIRO radio? I thought it was a talk show.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    I'm wondering if a few of you are struggling with reading comprehension.
    February 7, 2013 8:11 am
    As I'm reading Mr. Ross' commentary today, it seems to be a pretty balanced post.

    As I read it, Mr. Ross is saying that we need to find a balance between protecting the 2nd ammendment, while at the same time trying to find a way to better protect citizens against people that shouldn't have guns (such as the mentally ill).

    Many of you seem to be mired in some other debate about guns and ignored the whole point of Mr. Ross' post.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Dave is once again,
    February 7, 2013 8:20 am
    attempting to mock, ridicule and belittle people who disagree with him on gun rights. He doesn't think people should own an AR-15 but can't bring himself to actually say that. Instead, he'd rather invoke the image of US military personnel showing up in your neighborhood in "Nazi uniforms."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Angry Monkey wrote...
    Stevebo
    February 7, 2013 9:26 am
    Reading comprehension only serves to get in the way of an un-hinged, ill-informed, hyperbolic rant. If you are looking for a intelligent conversation from opposing view points on this message board, you sir, have come to the wrong place.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    I know Angry Monkey...
    February 7, 2013 12:31 pm
    The comment section on this website (and most other websites for that matter) is rife with ranting, yelling, and various other tripe.

    Still though, I always hope for reasonable conversation... and if you look for it, some of the posters do present logic and reason in their responses (more more than others).

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Why is it people have such a hard time....
    February 7, 2013 9:20 am
    understanding that just because an event is unlikely to happen you shouldn't be prepared for it. In this instance you're talking about fear of Government overstepping it's bounds and becoming tyrannical. Okay... This has happened in the past, it's happening right now in other parts of the globe, the very fact that the population would be willing to give up their firearms could in fact be a catalyst that moves the Government toward that end. Look it's not a likely scenario, but neither is your house burning down... but you have fire detectors... and insurance in case it happens... Neither is an Earthquake, but we have preparedness kits, heck, a Nuclear explosion is EXTREMELY unlikely but we were taught about it and told to you know duck and cover under the desk as if that's going to matter... there's hundreds of extremely unlikely scenarios that we prepare for... because the fact remains if those things do happen the results are absolutely horrific... So why is this such a suprise to people like Dave Ross who likes to refer to people who don't trust that the Government will always be by the people and for the people, as "Unbalanced" ... well then he better be out there scoffing at people that have a fire extinguisher, or anybody that prepares for any unlikely event like an earthquake or flood or whatever. it's not like this country has not had a civil war already...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • manimal wrote...
    Normalcy bias
    February 7, 2013 5:22 pm
    If you don't already know, look it up. They are actually projecting their unwillingness to admit the very possibility of what you describe. Instead, they chastise and ridicule those who are aware of modern history, and who are prepared for all possibilities. Just because you think it COULD happen, doesn't mean it WILL. Hell, I bought my first semi-auto firearm during the Bush years, because I was a bit concerned that *he* was the one who wouldn't want to give up his thrown.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • AKAF wrote...
    What happened to just the News
    February 7, 2013 11:41 pm
    I'm sadly disappointed in the discarding the the pre-pre Ross and Linda newsman. He was outstanding, put in little comments here and there. I disagreed but it was wasn't to the point where I changed the channel to Komo. Now we have a major political Democrat, an individual that ran as a Democrat candidate, commentary analyst giving us giving us the news everyday. This is acceptable to KIRO? Where is the other guy before Curly? He was perfect...Linda was a little too much but he was OK. Now we have a political hack, former Democrat hack, giving us the news in the morning for four hours? Get Bill back! Only reason for Kiro to make the change is that Dave was suffering during his three hours as a solo talker, and with Luke thus loyalty to Ross kicked in. This tells me that this is Dave's last chance...no one in liberal Seattle is listening...or that KOMO, great news show without opinion unlike KIRO, is kicking KIRO's backside in this time stop. Hint...KIRO..stop the opinions in the morning slot...I listen to KOMO for the news...and only the NEWS.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }