Mike Malloy controversial comments

[raccoonradio]

Another meme has popped up on facebook, etc.:
We protect our celebrities with guns
We protect our politicians with guns
We protect our banks with guns
We protect our courts with guns
We protect our children with a sign saying 'this is a gun free zone'...

..and then call someone with a gun when there's an emergency.
Also some businesses like restaurants have proudly promoted themselves as gun free zones.
Translation: Please rob us.

>>also in recent news, is the story of a North Carolina restaurant that had gone Chipotle on guns, and got robbed. At gunpoint. And what do you expect. Unless you have the good fortune of being robbed by someone who happily complies with your reminders of store policy, your stand for gun control is not going to end well for you.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/5835/gun-free-zone-restaurant-robbed-gunpoint/#T7gfDbODIMIwLpJs.99

So they don't want their customers to bring in guns. Good news...the robbers _aren't_ customers! They are there to
rob the place. And they don't intend to follow the no-gun rule.

Perhaps if our politicians and celebrities (the ones who appear in gun-happy movies) voluntarily disarmed their bodyguards, they could set a good example. And when someone comes at them with a gun, maybe the secret service or bodyguards could just try to take
the potential assassin down without having to rely on a gun.

 

[JeffM]

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.

To use my catch phrase again...look who's talking!

 

[JeffM]

(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".

Now we're in TV land. 1. Quoting Archie Bunker...honestly. 2. Welcome to Dodge City. Where's Marshal Dillon?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

There are a bunch of players sitting around the table thinking they are the ones who "call the shots" (sorry for the bad pun) on this issue of guns and where they can and cannot be.

Congress is sure they can write the rules.
Talk Radio (conservative and liberal) is sure they will be right in the end
People carrying small copies of the Constitution around in their pocket are sure they will domiate in the end.

There is one big, mighty, powerful player sitting at the table that no one here seems to talk about. The underwriter for your liability insurance. If you are a restaurant chain and you welcome guns, and a competing restaurant chain bans guns, over a period of time the insurance industry actuaries work fast and decisively. It's going to come time for insurance policy renewals and restaurants and other places where the public gathers will find that some get dropped by their insurance company, some are offered a renewal at a rate increase of 126% or something.

The insurance industry underwriters will eventually turn out to be the heavyweight sitting at the table on this issue of where guns can and cannot go. The underwriter will end up outranking Congress and all the lobby groups combined. It may take 5 or 6 years for the gears to grind, but when the transmission locks up, the gears will quit grinding.

People in the hospital business understand this process.

People in the construction industry understand this process.

People in the trucking industry understand this process.

It's a really ugly day when one call from your insurance agent just shreds what looked like a great budget and a rosy business year coming up.

 

[TheBigA]

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

You can believe whatever you want to believe. But the reason why there is an NRA and why they spend so much in lobbying is so the things they believe in are accepted and granted legally. If not, there'd be no need for the NRA.

They's playing into the dishonest stereotypes of people who want to take away their NATURAL BORN rights.

If that's true, then all of the laws that have been passed having to do with guns are unnecessary.

 

[boombox4]

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 is a reason the 2nd Amendment was written the way it was written. The right to bear arms is not only an individual right, but a collective right. That is why the comma is placed where it is placed.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual as well as a collective right.

 

[boombox4]

There are a bunch of players sitting around the table thinking they are the ones who "call the shots" (sorry for the bad pun) on this issue of guns and where they can and cannot be.

Congress is sure they can write the rules.
Talk Radio (conservative and liberal) is sure they will be right in the end
People carrying small copies of the Constitution around in their pocket are sure they will domiate in the end.

There is one big, mighty, powerful player sitting at the table that no one here seems to talk about. The underwriter for your liability insurance. If you are a restaurant chain and you welcome guns, and a competing restaurant chain bans guns, over a period of time the insurance industry actuaries work fast and decisively. It's going to come time for insurance policy renewals and restaurants and other places where the public gathers will find that some get dropped by their insurance company, some are offered a renewal at a rate increase of 126% or something.

The insurance industry underwriters will eventually turn out to be the heavyweight sitting at the table on this issue of where guns can and cannot go. The underwriter will end up outranking Congress and all the lobby groups combined. It may take 5 or 6 years for the gears to grind, but when the transmission locks up, the gears will quit grinding.

People in the hospital business understand this process.

People in the construction industry understand this process.

People in the trucking industry understand this process.

It's a really ugly day when one call from your insurance agent just shreds what looked like a great budget and a rosy business year coming up.

You make some very good points. Everybody forgets the cost of doing business often includes the cost of insuring your business.

I have a problem with people doing open carry anywhere in an urban area. Most (if not all) people who do it seem to be doing it for political reasons rather than personal safety reasons.

They just make gun owners, and people who support gun rights, look like a bunch of gun nuts. If you really need to have a weapon in an urban area for personal protection, that's what concealed carry is for.

 

[flybynight]

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual as well as a collective right.

And just like every other right, there ARE limitations.

 

[Small Market Guy]

If that's true, then all of the laws that have been passed having to do with guns are unnecessary.

99% of them are.

 

[Small Market Guy]

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was written the way it was written. The right to bear arms is not only an individual right, but a collective right. That is why the comma is placed where it is placed.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual as well as a collective right.

I wouldn't even bother trying to explain the "well regulated militia" part. The people ill-informed enough to use that argument aren't listening in the first place.

 

[Small Market Guy]

The insurance industry underwriters will eventually turn out to be the heavyweight sitting at the table on this issue of where guns can and cannot go. The underwriter will end up outranking Congress and all the lobby groups combined. It may take 5 or 6 years for the gears to grind, but when the transmission locks up, the gears will quit grinding.

And some other insurance group will pop up and sell insurance to the responsible gun owners and business who want their patronage. This idea of end running the Constitution via insurance has never gotten a bit of traction because actuaries run the insurance industry, not political hacks. The actuarial tables will prove that responsible gun owners make a community and its businesses SAFER, and insurance companies who want to make money will follow.

Your idea isn't far off from what people want to do, but it's not going to happen, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[TheBigA]

I wouldn't even bother trying to explain the "well regulated militia" part. The people ill-informed enough to use that argument aren't listening in the first place.

This is a good example of why so many people in this country are having trouble listening to talk radio. The people on the air, responsible for discussion, aren't open to the various other points of view that exist in the basic issues that confront this country. Instead, the hosts of these shows are closed to any divergent opinion, and then attack anyone who might have a different point of view. This is contrary to the methods used by the founding fathers, all of whom disagreed, but managed to be open to hear other opinions. Talk radio needs to be more open to the wide range of opinion in this country, and the hosts need to be the ones who lead the way.

 

[flybynight]

And some other insurance group will pop up and sell insurance to the responsible gun owners and business who want their patronage. This idea of end running the Constitution via insurance has never gotten a bit of traction because actuaries run the insurance industry, not political hacks. The actuarial tables will prove that responsible gun owners make a community and its businesses SAFER, and insurance companies who want to make money will follow.

BS. Prove that assertion.

Your idea isn't far off from what people want to do, but it's not going to happen, no matter how much you want it to.

All this gun-in-restaurant garbage is a publicity stunt. Many of these toothless yahoos claim that if you "don't use a right, you lose it!" which is born of the same facile reasoning as your posts.

Most people in this country don't give a rat's ass about guns and do just fine with our armed, trained, LEO's keeping our communities safe. While that isn't enough for the most paranoid among us, it is still the general consensus.

The gun fetish crowd has been wringing it's hands ever since Captain Blackman entered the white house. When another white guy is elected President, these gun fetishists and the rest of the tea party will crawl back under their respective rocks, guaranteed, which will be just the exclamation point many of us expected in proving the obvious about these people.

 

[Avid Listener]

I wouldn't even bother trying to explain the "well regulated militia" part. The people ill-informed enough to use that argument aren't listening in the first place.

I'll give it a try. In the parlance of the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well trained" or "well disciplined". It harks back to the same linguistic roots that differentiated regular and secular clergy in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. The "regular" clergy followed the "regula" or "rules" of an order. The secular clergy were parish priests. The key word is that the root "regula" refers to training. A "well regulated" militiaman knew how to load and fire his weapon, how to clean and maintain it, and other skills that made him an effective soldier when it was time to walk away from his plow or shop to answer his state's call to arms.

According to the US Code, the militia consists of all able-bodied men between certain ages. Subsequent court rules have struck down the discrimination against the less-than-totally-able, those outside of an age range, and women. Therefore, the militia of the United States consists, by law, of all citizens of the United States. Even flybynight and TheBigA are members of the US Militia, assuming they're citizens.

 

[flybynight]

I wouldn't even bother trying to explain the "well regulated militia" part. The people ill-informed enough to use that argument aren't listening in the first place.

That's a combination cop-out and deflection all in one! Congrats!

Your ilk cannot and will not discuss that part of the 2nd amendment because it blows your argument to pieces and you know it.

 

[flybynight]

I'll give it a try. In the parlance of the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well trained" or "well disciplined". It harks back to the same linguistic roots that differentiated regular and secular clergy in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. The "regular" clergy followed the "regula" or "rules" of an order. The secular clergy were parish priests. The key word is that the root "regula" refers to training. A "well regulated" militiaman knew how to load and fire his weapon, how to clean and maintain it, and other skills that made him an effective soldier when it was time to walk away from his plow or shop to answer his state's call to arms.

According to the US Code, the militia consists of all able-bodied men between certain ages. Subsequent court rules have struck down the discrimination against the less-than-totally-able, those outside of an age range, and women. Therefore, the militia of the United States consists, by law, of all citizens of the United States. Even flybynight and TheBigA are members of the US Militia, assuming they're citizens.

Based on that definition, the 2nd amendment mandates certain criteria to own a firearm, like knowing how to use it, etc. There is nothing that says part of that "regulating" cannot include waiting periods, mental evaluation, marksmanship, types of weapons, etc.

Your definition helps the case against these free-for-all types who think you can just own any old firearm without any oversight.

 

[TheBigA]

Even flybynight and TheBigA are members of the US Militia, assuming they're citizens.

From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

Therefore, if the President orders the militia to "stand down," all citizens are obligated to give up their arms. And when they speak out against the President, they're committing mutiny.

 

[JeffM]

And some other insurance group will pop up and sell insurance to the responsible gun owners and business who want their patronage.

Who'll that be? Mutual of Yee-ha??

 

[flybynight]

Who'll that be? Mutual of Yee-ha??

Classic.

 

[Avid Listener]

I'd also point out that the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, though that declaration can be in the form of an appropriations bill funding a war without the passage of a law that includes the words "Declaration of War". The Commander-in-Chief only has authority over the state militias in time of war. And though it would take a court decision to confirm it, even if there was a de-facto state of war in existence because Congress appropriated funds, if the appropriations bill includes limitations, such as only approving military action in Afghanistan, that still wouldn't give the President carte-blanche to order the militia to stand down.

What's more, due to the complete text of the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings, even if the militia is ordered to stand down, that means they go home with their weapons.

It would be a lot easier to respect radio talk show hosts who advocate a particular point of view if their opinions were supported by the fundamental law of the land. In other words, radio talk show hosts should know what they're talking about before they start talking.