Mike Malloy controversial comments

[Small Market Guy]

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.

Good lord, do you even read what you post before you post it?

Stick to radio stuff. You have insightful things to say about that.

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.

Would a discussion of the sky being purple be good radio? Probably not. This is the same thing. This isn't something open for discussion. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

Yes, individual gun owners can jump from one carrier to another, and underwriting standards for individuals can be pretty flexible.

But if you are a corporation with 2,000 or more employees, it won't be political hacks in the company that will mess up your party.... it will be the ACTUARIES. Well, actuaries is more of a life insurance terminology. UNDERWRITERS is the word.

If you are a restaurant chain with 200, 500, 1,500 locations across the country, there is a very, very, very small collection of companies who will write a policy of the size you need. And then they off-load much of the risk via the mechanism of "re-insurance" and now the market-place gets even smaller.

If the re-insurance crowd gets (pardon the expression) "gun shy" about your company, your ability to buy insurance to protect your corporation vanishes. And it is hard to hide your facts from the re-insurance crowd. Some of them have been holding a "piece" of your portfolio in past years from whatever insurance company you chose to place your coverage with. The re-insurance people already know if you are careful and well organized, or if you are a bit careless with detail.

So if you are a restaurant chain with a national footprint and you decide to cater to the "exhibitionist wing" of the gun-owning folks, all it will take is one nasty incident where a taxi-cab backfires and 17 folks immediately began spraying lead from their AR-15s in the restaurant. Kiss your insurance good-bye come renewal time. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Don't bother to call FLO over at Progressive. She won't be able to help you.

I've been dying to tell you this: I was the RISK MANAGER for a company that owned a hand-full of hospitals, two hands-full of nursing homes, we did all our own construction. We owned a MONSTER western farming operation. We owned underground coal mines in Eastern Kentucky. Dozens of companies. By the way... we self-insured all employee health insurance... and I looked at EVERY CLAIM from 4,400 employees, and personally signed EVERY CHECK to every doctor, hospital, etc.

Every insurance company in America that wrote Medical Malpractice for hospitals disappeard from the state where we operated hospitals and to keep the doors open, we created our own self-insurance program. I read every damned incident report for every dropped or spilled bed-pan for two years, along with some pretty serious incidents.

My observations about insurance coverage and underwriting are from hands-on experience.... not some blowing-in-the-wind talk-show-host mentality of convenience and flamboyant conversation.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I've been dying to tell you this: I was the RISK MANAGER

Good for you. Then you know what you're saying is absolute bunk.

You're right that someone will TRY to make the insurance industry infringe on gun rights, you're wrong in the assertion that it will work.

 

[Avid Listener]

I would suggest that there is just as good a chance that if some crazy person were to shoot and kill multiple patrons at a "gun free zone" business, there is an excellent chance that the families of the victims would file an hellaciously big lawsuit blaming the business for not allowing anyone in their store to have the means to defend themselves against crazy people. When it comes to lawsuits, no matter what happens, and no matter what advance preparations are made, the lawyers can always find an excuse to sue.

As for the myth of "being open to various points of view", not every point of view is worthy of respect or consideration. There are some things in this world that simply are the way that they are. If someone has a point of view that the world is flat, I'm sorry. That viewpoint is ridiculous, and not worthy of respect or consideration. Just because someone who keeps their hat lined with tinfoil to stop the aliens from pumping message beams into their brain is a human being doesn't mean he isn't a totally loony human being.

 

[Small Market Guy]

As for the myth of "being open to various points of view", not every point of view is worthy of respect or consideration. There are some things in this world that simply are the way that they are.

I agree, but the problem is people are unable to read basic English at this point, and have no idea of the history of our country. They don't have the basic understanding of the Second Amendment required to even have an intelligent discussion. When you get the "well regulated militia" argument, and try to teach them by asking them to read Federalist 29, which specifically defines that term, their eyes gloss over and they go into talking point mode.

 

[boombox4]

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.

Conservative talk shows mention the militia clause all the time. The only argument 'blown to pieces' by the militia clause is the idea that only state militias have the rights to bear weapons. Gun ownership is an individual right as well as a collective right. The amendment itself says it. The Supreme Court has said it more than once.

If there were no individual right to bear arms, the Constitutions of many states would not be allowed to have that right written in them:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Sure, there are limitations -- just as there are on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion (you can believe what you want, but you can't always practice what you believe), right to privacy, etc.

And there should be some limitations. You shouldn't be able to carry a fully automatic weapon, or a rocket launcher around with you, any more than you should be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

[TheBigA]

Good lord, do you even read what you post before you post it?

Once again, this is why so many people have given up on talk radio. It's filled with hosts who prefer to STIFLE discussion rather than promote it. That's NOT how you make good discussion, and it's not how you make good radio.

Your job is to say, "You're welcome to your opinion. Let's take another call." That's your job. Do it. You might get a better show.

This isn't something open for discussion. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Of COURSE it's open for discussion. People far smarter than you or I have been discussing that language since it was written. Why? Because of the context of that phrase. The fact that Madison went through several drafts, and Jefferson made some changes says very clearly that it's a subject for discussion. Over a dozen court decisions prove that it's open for discussion. Now, you choose to shut down discussion. If you weren't so wrapped up in your own ego and ideology, you'd understand this matter is still very open to discussion. Just not with you.

THIS is why talk radio is in trouble. In 1789, people were arguing about the language. Now, we get told we're wrong, and this is not open for discussion. It's the TYRANNY OF TALK RADIO! You know what we do with tyrants? Ask King George.

 

[flybynight]

I agree, but the problem is people are unable to read basic English at this point, and have no idea of the history of our country. They don't have the basic understanding of the Second Amendment required to even have an intelligent discussion. When you get the "well regulated militia" argument, and try to teach them by asking them to read Federalist 29, which specifically defines that term, their eyes gloss over and they go into talking point mode.

There he is NOT ignoring me again.

lol

We get it, you support gun fetishists who don't believe there should be any restrictions on firearms of any kind. You play games, as they do, with the meaning of the 2nd amendment to bolster your absurd argument.

It's that very maniacal mentality that will cause a backlash and eventually lead to the 2nd amendment becoming even more restrictive.

Thank God you're a shrinking breed.

 

[FredLeonard]

What always gets left out is the original rationale for well-regulated militias - that is state militias - to protect states against an over-reaching federal government. The founders presumed that states had the right to reject federal laws, to secede and to defend themselves from federal forces. Just like in 1861. Or 1814 when New England came close to pulling out.

 

[JeffM]

Just because someone who keeps their hat lined with tinfoil to stop the aliens from pumping message beams into their brain is a human being doesn't mean he isn't a totally loony human being.

True, but that tinfoil hat does make a dandy antenna for picking up right wing talk radio...

 

[johnbasalla]

It doesn't help if potential guests 'on the other side' refuse to come on. Dennis Prager mentions that he, and most conservative hosts, will go on liberal talk shows, but liberals tend to to say "no" when asked to appear on a conservative's talk show. Dennis has a weekly segment called "The Happiness Hour". He invited a University Professor, who happens to be a liberal thinker, on to talk about happiness. The Professor agreed, but pulled out when he found out that Prager was a staunch Conservative. This was noteworthy because the topic to be discussed did not involve politics.

 

[raccoonradio]

Laura Ingraham did a show during the Iraq war and tried to have someone on from Lawyers Against the War. When Laura asked him if Saddam being out of power was a good thing, he refused to answer and hung up angrily. Laura's prod. tried to get him back on, but he swore off-air at the producer. A site called Olbermann Watch mentioned how few conservative/Republican guests were on as guests on Olby's TV show. In his book Muzzled, Juan Williams mentioned that while the prime time hosts leaned
right on Fox News, they tried to get all sides of an issue on.

 

[raccoonradio]

My quoting of Archie Bunker was a bit of comic relief in a way. But Gene Burns did have a good point about "what if someone on the L.I.R.R. were armed when Colin Ferguson started to spray bullets..."

The police in Newtown got to the scene in minutes. If a teacher were armed maybe there would have been fewer victims,
yes, a 'maybe'. A group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns put a bunch of celebs in a PSA calling for gun control. A video
on youtube showed these same celebrities seemed to be in movies and TV shows that glamorized gun violence. Wonder if they should
set a good example, or maybe ask their bodyguards to disarm themselves...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAwbEJ58yY

 

[JeffM]

So-called "Hollywood liberals" make movies; conservatives think movies are real life.

 

[TheBigA]

What always gets left out is the original rationale for well-regulated militias - that is state militias - to protect states against an over-reaching federal government.

George Wallace didn't do too well with that one at the University of Alabama in 1963.

Once again, there's a big difference between owning guns to be a part of a state-run militia, and personally owning military assault rifles on general principle. No one to the best of my knowledge is questioning organized militias who meet and train on a regular basis.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

George Wallace didn't do too well with that one at the University of Alabama in 1963.

Once again, there's a big difference between owning guns to be a part of a state-run militia, and personally owning military assault rifles on general principle. No one to the best of my knowledge is questioning organized militias who meet and train on a regular basis.

Didn't work for Orval Faubus in Arkansas in 1957 either.

 

[TheBigA]

Didn't work for Orval Faubus in Arkansas in 1957 either.

Exactly. Let's face it...if the Civil War were to happen again, the Union soldiers would have the complete assets of the American Military Industrial complex on their side, and the Confederates would have a bunch of individual gun owners. Who do you think would win?

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't help if potential guests 'on the other side' refuse to come on.

Would you want to be a "guest" on a show where you become the enemy? Where what you say is attacked the way our comments have been targeted in this thread? Doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

[flybynight]

Would you want to be a "guest" on a show where you become the enemy? Where what you say is attacked the way our comments have been targeted in this thread? Doesn't sound like fun to me.

Very true.

Today's talkradio isn't any kind of open-discussion forum, but rather a hostile environment where you either march in lock step or get demonized and ridiculed for even merely suggesting a different viewpoint.

It's disturbing, actually.

 

[flybynight]

and the Confederates would have a bunch of individual gun owners. Who do you think would win?

My guess is the side that doesn't most of their meals at Chic-Fil-A.