Mike Malloy controversial comments

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

In most states where these protests are taking place, open carry is legal and concealed carry is highly regulated or illegal. This idea of asking for permission to exercise a God-given right is their issue. We don't need "free speech" licenses. That's their legit gripe.

The method is not the way I'd do things, and it makes Constitutional Carry advocates look bad, but these people are well intentioned, if a bit ham-fisted.

Great. You can help me understand this "God-given right" thing. Is this a right only granted by the Judeo-Christian God?

Do Catholics get a different set of gun rules than do the protestants?

Do the people of China have a God-given right to carry their own personal AR-15? Which God signs-off on their right?

Do the people of Iraq have a God-given right to carry their own personal AR-15? Was that granted by the Judeo-Christian God, or did the Muslim Deity Allah give them this right?

Do the various Gods of the universe ever meet somewhere like the U.N. or something and maybe turn to A.L.E.C. to write them some standard legislation so each nation will have the same God-given freedoms and rights?

I don't fully understand Buddhism but someone close to me explains that there is not a Buddhist GOD as such. So are Buddhists just out of luck? Do they become the clay pigeons for everyone else to use for target practice?

Are there some states where if I want to open carry a weapon, can I just present my baptismal certificate and forget the gun permit thingy?

And finally.... when I come face to face with a "Background Check" requirement, do they check my background.... or do they check God's background?

 

[TheBigA]

Even making the comparison at all is irresponsible and inflammatory.

It's as much my right to make it as it is theirs to carry a combat rifle in a non-combat situation. They need to respect my rights too.

 

[TheBigA]

pandering to the audience's lowest urges is the ticket to radio ratings success.

Very few of these shows are experiencing what anyone would call "ratings success." But that's a topic for a different thread.

And, if I go to an expensive, upscale coffee shop, I'd rather not risk having some yahoo steal my rifle from my parked car, so I'll sling it over my shoulder.

Even the NRA will tell you the proper place for a gun is locked in the gun rack. Walking around with a loaded automatic rifle invites accidents.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Sorry I interrupted your "conservative talk radio is evil" circle jerk.

I hate to be the bearer of disappointing news.... but I don't recall "conservative talk radio is evil" being a part of our conversation.

You picked a good week to be gone. You would have found the conversation here much too tame, calm and pleasant.

As for this week, it is duly noted that you are the one who brought up that sure-fire heat-generator concept. And it's only Tuesday. What are we going to talk about now for the rest of the week? It could be a bit anti-climactic.

Maybe this would be a good opportunity to talk about the Carbon Tax and Global Warming.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Great. You can help me understand this "God-given right" thing. Is this a right only granted by the Judeo-Christian God?

Do Catholics get a different set of gun rules than do the protestants?

Do the people of China have a God-given right to carry their own personal AR-15? Which God signs-off on their right?

Do the people of Iraq have a God-given right to carry their own personal AR-15? Was that granted by the Judeo-Christian God, or did the Muslim Deity Allah give them this right?

Do the various Gods of the universe ever meet somewhere like the U.N. or something and maybe turn to A.L.E.C. to write them some standard legislation so each nation will have the same God-given freedoms and rights?

I don't fully understand Buddhism but someone close to me explains that there is not a Buddhist GOD as such. So are Buddhists just out of luck? Do they become the clay pigeons for everyone else to use for target practice?

Are there some states where if I want to open carry a weapon, can I just present my baptismal certificate and forget the gun permit thingy?

And finally.... when I come face to face with a "Background Check" requirement, do they check my background.... or do they check God's background?

Would you prefer NATURAL BORN RIGHTS, Nitpicking Ned?

Every human being is BORN with certain unalienable rights. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Our rights are not "given" to us by a sheet of paper. That sheet of paper is a framework to PROTECT those rights from people who would steal them.

I don't know if you think you're being funny, but you're not.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Even the NRA will tell you the proper place for a gun is locked in the gun rack. Walking around with a loaded automatic rifle invites accidents.

1. These aren't "automatic" rifles. They're semi-automatic. They have safety features that prevent accidents. The people carrying them at these protests know how to carry them properly. There isn't going to be a case of some yokel dropping a rifle and it accidentally shooting a baby. It's NOT going to happen.

2. The proper place for any gun is the place where it will do the most good. As I've mentioned, carrying a rifle around is a bit counterproductive since they have little practical use. But the proper place for a pistol is in a holster at the owner's side. The NRA is almost useless. They support registration schemes like permits, so real Second Amendment advocates have given up on them.

 

[TheBigA]

The people carrying them at these protests know how to carry them properly.

They're not the people I'm worried about. In case you haven't noticed, there are crazy people walking around.

These protestors are no different from any other protesters. They should be treated as such. It seems to me the right to "peaceful assembly" is done some harm when the assemblers are all carrying rifles. Also could be strange when the protesters are better armed than the authorities whose job it is to keep the assembly peaceful.

There's another issue: The role of radio. We discussed this on another board a few months ago. A local AM talk station actually sponsored one of these rallies, and was actively promoting it on the air. How do we the people feel about that?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Every human being is BORN with certain unalienable rights. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Our rights are not "given" to us by a sheet of paper. That sheet of paper is a framework to PROTECT those rights from people who would steal them.

I'm sure the people of North Korea will feel a bit more free tomorrow now that you have explained that.

The people who spent their lives in Soviet Gulags will feel better knowing they actually were born with certain unalienable rights.

The African Americans of the last 150 years are comforted to know that they never needed a piece of paper from Congress to get to vote, or compete fairly for a job. After all, they were born with certain unalienable rights. And here we are 150 years later still having battles in Congress over rights..... that are (in theory) unalienable.

And Talk Radio as we know it is not their friend!

In theory we have this unalienable right to speak freely, to be heard. But Talk Radio works daily to make sure that only select people actually get to speak freely, to be heard. I guess Unalienable is a lesser being and doesn't really rank up there with God after all.

Where is the sheet of paper that is a framework to make sure we all have a public voice?

Are unalienable rights actually ranked and some subjugated to others? Do gun rights rank higher that voting rights? Do gun rights outrank higher than speech rights?

So should we rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance so it would now read: One Nation, under Unalienable, with Liberty and Justice for All." Maybe our money should read "In Unalienable We Trust"

 

[TheBigA]

Every human being is BORN with certain unalienable rights. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

There's a difference between the Declaration and the Constitution, and there's a reason why that "unalienable rights" phrase was left out of the later document.

 

[flybynight]

Every human being is BORN with certain unalienable rights. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Our rights are not "given" to us by a sheet of paper. That sheet of paper is a framework to PROTECT those rights from people who would steal them.

You're not BORN with the right to own or carry a firearm. At least not in a country where we all make the rules together. They're not dictated from the sky.

Speaking of those rules, some people who have reading comprehension issues always conveniently neglect to acknowledge the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment. Funny that.

 

[flybynight]

The people carrying them at these protests know how to carry them properly.

How in the hell do YOU know that?

There isn't going to be a case of some yokel dropping a rifle and it accidentally shooting a baby. It's NOT going to happen.

There's ridiculously unsubstantiated statement #2.

The NRA is almost useless. They support registration schemes like permits, so real Second Amendment advocates have given up on them.

Now we really know who we're dealing with, don't we.

Oy vey.

 

[boombox4]

So -- according to some of you -- you only have the rights that your government says you should have.

So Gandhi was wrong. Mandela was wrong. Martin Luther King was wrong. The abolitionists of the 19th century were wrong. When Jimmy Carter based his foreign policy on the idea of universal "human rights", he was wrong.

I realise that probably Gandhi, Mandela, and Jimmy Carter probably didn't and don't agree with the NRA's idea of rights, but when I see people state that there is no such thing as universal human rights, I find that a bit troubling.

 

[TheBigA]

So -- according to some of you -- you only have the rights that your government says you should have.

Depends. Ellen Degeneres says she has the right to marry another woman. In some places, she can, in others, she can't.

I doubt that many of the 2nd amendment supporters would agree with her view.

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he eliminated half the population.

So what you have are human rights, and LEGAL rights. They're not always the same thing.

Technically speaking, you only have rights if they're accepted and granted. You can't just say, "Today I am Lord of my domain." That's why King pushed so hard for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then continued to fight for the proper interpretation of the Act. He, Gandhi, and Mandela all fought for their rights to be accepted.

 

[flybynight]

So -- according to some of you -- you only have the rights that your government says you should have.

So Gandhi was wrong. Mandela was wrong. Martin Luther King was wrong. The abolitionists of the 19th century were wrong. When Jimmy Carter based his foreign policy on the idea of universal "human rights", he was wrong.

I realise that probably Gandhi, Mandela, and Jimmy Carter probably didn't and don't agree with the NRA's idea of rights, but when I see people state that there is no such thing as universal human rights, I find that a bit troubling.

"Universal human rights", as you refer to them, have to do with basic human dignity and fairness. The "right" to own a firearm isn't exactly in that inner circle of basic and essential human rights.

Actually, the way the gun crowd behaves, it seems like more of a fetish.

 

[Avid Listener]

Great. You can help me understand this "God-given right" thing. Is this a right only granted by the Judeo-Christian God?

It's a figure of speech similar to the legal term "act of God" referring to things like storms. Our country is founded on the premise that there are certain fundamental natural rights that all human beings intrinsically have. One of those rights is the right to defend one's own person, one's family, and one's property. That includes the right to access to the tools (weapons) needed for that purpose. If the figure of speech "God given rights" offends you, feel free to substitute "natural rights" or "fundamental rights". As long as one accepts the premise that human beings have certain inalienable rights, it doesn't matter if an atheist would prefer to have them described using a term that doesn't include a reference to God.

There are people out there who believe that people have no rights at all, except those granted to them by the state. That is the real point of contention. Do human beings have certain inalienable rights, or don't they? Arguing about whether those natural rights are given by a Deity or are the result of random natural selection or are part of some sort of "natural law" simply clouds the issue.

Frankly, such mockery of a serious issue like whether or not people have certain fundamental rights or not by posting a comedy routine mocking the figure of speech that contains the word "God" makes for a very, very ugly post. A post that wastes time dancing with.

I'm sure the people of North Korea will feel a bit more free tomorrow now that you have explained that.

The people who spent their lives in Soviet Gulags will feel better knowing they actually were born with certain unalienable rights.

The fact that tyrannical governments have taken peoples' inalienable rights from them does not prove that inalienable rights do not exist. It only proves that tyrannical governments can steal peoples' rights away from them.

 

[Avid Listener]

xx

 

[flybynight]

That includes the right to access to the tools (weapons) needed for that purpose.

What a bunch of hogwash.

How ironic that these ultra-conservatives have such a liberal interpretation of the MAN-MADE constitution of this country.

Again, NONE of them EVER acknowledge the part of the 2nd amendment that says a "well regulated militia". They don't mention that because it blows their whole ridiculous argument out of the water.

There are people out there who believe that people have no rights at all, except those granted to them by the state. That is the real point of contention. Do human beings have certain inalienable rights, or don't they? Arguing about whether those natural rights are given by a Deity or are the result of random natural selection or are part of some sort of "natural law" simply clouds the issue.

No, hyper-partisans like yourself with extreme agendas cloud the issue.

Gun ownership has limitations. Period. Get over it.

The fact that tyrannical governments have taken peoples' inalienable rights from them does not prove that inalienable rights do not exist. It only proves that tyrannical governments can steal peoples' rights away from them.

I can't believe it took you several paragraphs before you finally invoked "tyrannical". You did, however, use it twice in rapid succession to make up for it. So there's that.

On a sidenote: Anybody notice how often the word "tyrannical" has been regurgitated by talkradio since the black guy was elected President? What's up with that?

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Even the NRA will tell you the proper place for a gun is locked in the gun rack.

The recent incident nr Portland OR had a high school student somehow getting the gun(s) out of his family's stash
>>Police say the suspected shooter got the guns used in Tuesday's shooting from his family's house.
Those guns were locked up, but Oregon Sen. Ginny Burdick told KATU Padgett{'s father) should be held criminally responsible for the shooting since she claims he didn't properly lock up his guns.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/nat...nt_internallink_relatedcontent_2014_partners1

The debates has suggested more laws be passed, but lawbreakers don't obey the laws. An illegal alien driving illegally kills a couple. The fact that he was in the country illegally and didn't have a license didn't prevent him from doing what he did.
Leaving alone the presence in the country of the man in this hypo. case, not having a license didn't stop him so what else
could have been done?

Not a gun enthusiast, but I know that gun-free zones like schools are an invitation for those WITH guns, legal or illegal, to do
their crimes knowing that at least at first, they won't be stopped. Yes maybe after a few minutes with police response ("when seconds count, the police are minutes away"). After the Long Island Railroad tragedy, the late Gene Burns said that
had someone on the train been armed they could have stopped Colin Ferguson. Who knows. (As Archie Bunker once put it
in an AITF episode where he does a guest TV editorial about hijacking, 'What we do is, arm all your passengers...') Those in school attacks might be able to gang up on the shooter and subdue him, true, but as another saying goes "a bad guy with a gun can be stopped by a good guy with a gun".

I think in the Oregon case he was loaded up with a lot more ammo and admittedly the presence of police forced him to be cornered in a bathroom and he killed himself. He had plans for a lot more killing.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I'm sure the people of North Korea will feel a bit more free tomorrow now that you have explained that.

The people who spent their lives in Soviet Gulags will feel better knowing they actually were born with certain unalienable rights.

The African Americans of the last 150 years are comforted to know that they never needed a piece of paper from Congress to get to vote, or compete fairly for a job. After all, they were born with certain unalienable rights. And here we are 150 years later still having battles in Congress over rights..... that are (in theory) unalienable.

And Talk Radio as we know it is not their friend!

In theory we have this unalienable right to speak freely, to be heard. But Talk Radio works daily to make sure that only select people actually get to speak freely, to be heard. I guess Unalienable is a lesser being and doesn't really rank up there with God after all.

Where is the sheet of paper that is a framework to make sure we all have a public voice?

Are unalienable rights actually ranked and some subjugated to others? Do gun rights rank higher that voting rights? Do gun rights outrank higher than speech rights?

So should we rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance so it would now read: One Nation, under Unalienable, with Liberty and Justice for All." Maybe our money should read "In Unalienable We Trust"

Do you ever contribute anything? All you do is find one small point and puke lots of words onto the screen, never actually saying anything.

If you want to be taken seriously when you cry about "talk radio" not being civil, then be civil here. Stop trolling.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Technically speaking, you only have rights if they're accepted and granted.

The sad thing is, most people these days actually believe this crap.

It seems to me the right to "peaceful assembly" is done some harm when the assemblers are all carrying rifles. Also could be strange when the protesters are better armed than the authorities whose job it is to keep the assembly peaceful.

No, because these people are doing nothing illegal nor are they doing anything that isn't peaceful. A rifle is an inanimate object until used. These people are not using them. Comparing them to wackos and criminals is dishonest, and the exact reason why what they're doing is a bad idea. They's playing into the dishonest stereotypes of people who want to take away their NATURAL BORN rights.