Mike Malloy controversial comments

[TheBigA]

I've already posted it several times. Federalist 29.

The word "tyranny" does not appear in my copy of Federalist 29. Maybe you can copy and paste me a quote.

Also, wasn't Hamilton opposed to the Bill Of Rights?

 

[FredLeonard]

The word "tyranny" does not appear in my copy of Federalist 29. Maybe you can copy and paste me a quote.

Also, wasn't Hamilton opposed to the Bill Of Rights?

This time, you're right. 29 is about the need for and role of a militia. It calls for citizens to be trained in the use of arms and regularly to drill, otherwise they aren't much good in a militia. It specifically mentions the duty of citizens under arms to join a posse comitatus to assit authorities in maintaining order.

The Federalist Papers were written to drum up support for ratification of the constitution. They did not deal with any later amendments. Hamilton was a leader of the Federalists and pushed for a strong central government (good for business, you know). The Bill of Rights was put forward as a compromise with Anti-Federalists, who would only vote to ratify the constitution if brakes were put of the central government's power. Not that the feds haven't pretty much worked around all of those since. Before ratification, Hamilton said he did not think a Bill of Rights was really necessary but he did not actively oppose it either.

 

[TheBigA]

This time, you're right. 29 is about the need for and role of a militia. It calls for citizens to be trained in the use of arms and regularly to drill, otherwise they aren't much good in a militia.

I've read that several times in different places, so they seemed to have a clear definition for a militia that was a bit more narrow than "all able bodied men.

 

[FredLeonard]

I've read that several times in different places, so they seemed to have a clear definition for a militia that was a bit more narrow than "all able bodied men.

Or, they expected that all able bodied men would show up. Remember, we are talking about English common law and a time not far removed from the middle ages. Common law gave authorities the right to "raise the hue and cry" and all able-bodied freemen were required to join the posse comitatus. Hamilton didn't seem to question this, just to argue that all able-bodied men need training to be an effective militia or posse.

 

[Avid Listener]

It should also be noted that "militia" is defined in the US Code. It is not only Common Law, though that's one legitimate source of the concept of militia. It is also part of the formal legal code of the United States. It is defined by a combination of statute law and common law, plus many legal precedents from various court rulings.

 

[Small Market Guy]

The word "tyranny" does not appear in my copy of Federalist 29. Maybe you can copy and paste me a quote.

Also, wasn't Hamilton opposed to the Bill Of Rights?

You have to do more than hit CTRL-F and type in "tyranny". You have to actually read it. It talks about the role of the militia and what it's used for.

Also Federalist 46. Which actually does use the word tyranny.

 

[TheBigA]

Also Federalist 46. Which actually does use the word tyranny.

In speaking about the crown governments of Europe.

What Madison didn't anticipate was the 22nd Amendment. Because he's talking about an "uninterrupted succession of men..." And certainly Washington himself considered this when he was asked to serve a third term. The 22nd Amendment eliminates the possibility of a tyrant. Say what you will about the current President. He'll be gone in two years, that you can guarantee. And unlike Grover Cleveland, he won't be back.

The other thing he didn't anticipate was the federal army opening bases in practically every state. That really changes the face of the army. The federal army is now local, hiring local people, driving the local economy, providing services to the local people they can't get elsewhere. I lived near a base once, and it was quite the place. We were often invited on base for holiday concerts and cookouts. No tyranny there. And the states love those federal bases. A few years ago when Congress proposed shutting a few down, the states campaigned to keep them open. So it's really changed the concept of the federal army that Madison spoke about.

 

[Small Market Guy]

The 22nd Amendment eliminates the possibility of a tyrant. Say what you will about the current President. He'll be gone in two years, that you can guarantee. And unlike Grover Cleveland, he won't be back.

Tyranny doesn't require a one "tyrant" when you have have half a million unelected unaccountable tyrants sitting in cubicles in Washington DC. Stop thinking of this in terms of one person or one period in time. This is a problem that has been festering for 100 years and exacerbated to various degrees by almost every president since the aforementioned Grover Cleveland.

 

[TheBigA]

Tyranny doesn't require a one "tyrant" when you have have half a million unelected unaccountable tyrants sitting in cubicles in Washington DC.

I didn't read anything in any of the Federalist Papers that justified war on civil servants. All of their budgets are approved and appropriated every year by Congress. If Congress doesn't like civil servants, they have it in their power to shut it down, as they did for a few days this year. They've cut budgets at a lot of agencies, most notably the FCC.

Your posts are starting to read like the Unibomber's manifesto, rather than something written by Madison or Hamilton. None of what you're talking about would be approved by either of them.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I didn't read anything in any of the Federalist Papers that justified war on civil servants. All of their budgets are approved and appropriated every year by Congress. If Congress doesn't like civil servants, they have it in their power to shut it down, as they did for a few days this year. They've cut budgets at a lot of agencies, most notably the FCC.

Your posts are starting to read like the Unibomber's manifesto, rather than something written by Madison or Hamilton. None of what you're talking about would be approved by either of them.

You try living in an area where the EPA is trying to destroy the main industry. You can call me a terrorist all you want, but the fact remains that you didn't even know the most basic history of the Constitution of Bill of Rights. You thought the Bill of Rights was passed at the same time as the Constitution. Stop acting like you're an expert, when you're obviously not.

 

[TheBigA]

You thought the Bill of Rights was passed at the same time as the Constitution. Stop acting like you're an expert, when you're obviously not.

Talk show host 101: Discredit the witness. Regardless of what he says. You don't address what I said, instead you just made a personal attack on me. Not fair.

At no time did I say I was an expert on anything. I'm just a radio guy posting freely on a radio board. That's my right. You need to calm down.

 

[Avid Listener]

You have to do more than hit CTRL-F and type in "tyranny". You have to actually read it. It talks about the role of the militia and what it's used for.

Also Federalist 46. Which actually does use the word tyranny.

It might also help to have a thesaurus handy.

Tyranny doesn't require a one "tyrant" when you have have half a million unelected unaccountable tyrants sitting in cubicles in Washington DC. Stop thinking of this in terms of one person or one period in time. This is a problem that has been festering for 100 years and exacerbated to various degrees by almost every president since the aforementioned Grover Cleveland.

The tyranny of the unelected bureaucrats is probably one of the most pernicious and intractable enemies of liberty that exists.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Talk show host 101: Discredit the witness. Regardless of what he says. You don't address what I said, instead you just made a personal attack on me.

You say this after comparing me with the Unabomber. Do you even get the irony of this? Or is it hypocrisy? I always get those two confused. Stop playing victim. You'll never be able to catch GRC in martyr points, so don't bother trying.

I DID address what you said. You don't know what you're talking about. I gave examples of you not knowing what you are talking about.

By your own admission, you're just a radio guy. So stick to radio stuff. You're pretty good at that.

 

[FredLeonard]

You try living in an area where the EPA is trying to destroy the main industry.

Try living in an area where the main industry is trying to destroy the air you breathe and the water you drink, all in the name of corporate greed. Save a few bucks and just dump or blow off toxic crap. Are you really going to say that the health and lives of thousands, even millions, matters less than dividends and investment fund profits?

 

[Small Market Guy]

Try living in an area where the main industry is trying to destroy the air you breathe and the water you drink, all in the name of corporate greed. Save a few bucks and just dump or blow off toxic crap. Are you really going to say that the health and lives of thousands, even millions, matters less than dividends and investment fund profits?

There is no place in this country where that is happening.

 

[TheBigA]

You say this after comparing me with the Unabomber.

I didn't say anything about you. I described your posts. Read what you wrote. You're using the Constitution to justify using arms against government workers. That's what you're saying. I'm not calling you anything. You said it yourself. I hope for your sake you don't say any of this on the radio.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I didn't say anything about you. I described your posts. Read what you wrote. You're using the Constitution to justify using arms against government workers. That's what you're saying. I'm not calling you anything. You said it yourself. I hope for your sake you don't say any of this on the radio.

You might be able to pull that with some people, but I don't play games when it comes to that kind of stuff. This is exactly what you said:

Your posts are starting to read like the Unibomber's manifesto

That's a passive aggressive way of calling me a terrorist. Not to mention the FALSE accusation that I'm inciting the use of arms against government bureaucrats.

I don't say irresponsible things like that on the radio OR ON THE INTERNET. You shouldn't either. Grow up.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It was a little over a decade ago that the Goat Rodeo Cowboy jumped into the conversations among people with an interest in broadcasting. He has always been a bit colorful, a bit non-conformist. Always one to pinch and tweak a nose or two here and there. And taking as good as he gave.

If I were to end up in the presence of some of you.... sitting next to you on an airliner.... attending a seminar.... casting my election day ballot at the voting machine next to you, or standing in line at the Convenience store to pay for my ever-present cup of coffee... and we had some conversation, you would never suddenly look my way and say: "I know who you are! You're the guy on the Internet!" The guy sitting here at the keyboard doesn't exactly match the guy marching through the words printed on your computer screen.

On the one hand, I'm not real.

On the other hand I am 150 different real people blended into one.

In the last few days things have gotten just plain NASTY. And nasty toward me!

I am considering just dropping out. Who needs this crap? I am considering trading in the GRC identification and being reborn with a new ID, with or without the approval and blessing of those to operate the board. There are multiple options.

But whether I "hang tough" and GRC stays, or I do the Texas Two-step to some other part of the dance floor, I want to express something as GRC:

The problem is not my persona, my attitude, my style. The problem is we have ventured into a topic that is too sacred to be discussed by mere mortals. We have dared to discuss.... "the GUN".... the Second Amendment. Some of us have blasphemed THE HOLY BEING that is the center of life for a subset of Americans.

Look, we could be just one incident away from the world turning inside out. I thought the shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona might change things. I thought the loss of little children in Newtown might change things. We may go through another 15 or 20 horrific events. OR... the very next one... maybe one day after tomorrow or the following week may be the final straw.

It doesn't much matter what the people in 1789 were thinking... what they intended for their words to mean. It doesn't much matter when the Supreme Court said what.

It usually takes 10, 12 maybe even 18 years to amend our Constitution. But one future event could galvanize our population to the point that they demand action, and they demand action NOW. One quick constitutional amendment could wipe out what has been developed over the last 225 years. We could probably get it done in 4 or 5 years if the motivation came to a boil.

There are people in this country who will not look kindly on those who get as hostile about the 2nd Amendment as some of you have in the last couple of weeks in this discussion. You can get away with it here. You see, we are all kind of make believe here. We're like the kid that became my daughter's supervisor who said to her one day: "I can be anybody I want to! I grew up across the street from Disney Land."

But there are families out there who has lost someone in unnecessary gun-fire. My county has a deputy sheriff currently recovering from gun wounds when a wack-a-doodle attempted to turn our county courthouse into a war zone, and our deputy... at great personal discomfort... put a stop to it. His loved-ones may have some new attitudes about gun laws. Maybe he will come out the back side of this with changed thoughts.

So my proposal is that we learn to talk about the subject with civility. That we come to realize that a pretty decent person could see the topic differently than we do. And that the American Tradition would be that we sit down together and talk about. Well, at one time that was our tradition. Now... maybe not so much.

If I had strong, strong desires to see the 2nd Amendment not be gutted, I would be lobbying the broadcast industry to clean up Talk Radio on this topic before an outraged public goes viral on the industry. It should be Talk Radio heavy-duty players who are out front explaining to people that self-government IS a TWO WAY STREET when it comes to having a giant family conversation on the future of guns in our nation.

This IS an ugly post. You can dance with it even in it's ugliness. Maybe life is too short to ignore this one.

 

[Small Market Guy]

In the last few days things have gotten just plain NASTY. And nasty toward me!

How do you eat M&Ms with those holes in your hands?

So my proposal is that we learn to talk about the subject with civility.

You first. And don't bother sending me long rambling direct messages. I don't read them. Be a man and post whatever it is you have to say in the open. You're one of the nastiest people here, and until you realize that, you're going to continue getting shelled.

One more thing. Gleefully stepping over the bodies of dead children to make your point about gun control isn't a "civil" discussion.

 

[FredLeonard]

There is no place in this country where that is happening.

Not quite. It's not as bad or as obvious at it once was and your can thank the EPA for that. But back the main point, do you really consider profits more important than public health? Do you think corporations should not have to pay to clean up their crap and any messes they make? If they are not required to clean up - either the rest of us pay for it or the rest of us have live with their mess (and the consequences of their mess).