The House has been doing some pretty leader-esque things lately. But I'm sure you consider that mean and obstructionist. They should just rubber stamp everything from Harry Reid and the president.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Mike Malloy controversial comments
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
The House has been doing some pretty leader-esque things lately. But I'm sure you consider that mean and obstructionist. They should just rubber stamp everything from Harry Reid and the president.
Let me re-phrase: Nowhere in the last 125 years have I seen examples where an armed populace, other than those in the military, saved us from an invader.
But most of these gun owners aren't part of any organized posse or militia. They're a bunch of lone wolves.
Unless they're working with each other, as Madison and Jefferson did, as Reagan and O'Neil did, as Clinton and Gingrich did, they're not leading. They're just doing what they want. Leadership is working together to get what both sides want for the good of everyone. I know that sounds very quaint, but that's what self-government means.
Ever since the Winston campaign "like" has become a universal substitute for "as". Language is dynamic, and the current texting spellings and usages will likely become accepted over time.
Again, it's not protection from "invaders". It's protection from the same people you think aren't doing their jobs.
Compromise requires movement from BOTH sides. When one side refuses to move LEADERSHIP requires the other side to put a stop to everything. What you're seeing right now IS leadership.
I wouldn't bother if I were you. He's just trolling because he's upset I won't give him a link to my show so he can spam my Youtube page and send complaints to my employers.
OK, let me re-phrase once again: Nowhere in the last 125 years have I seen examples where an armed populace saved us from our government.
You don't know what leadership is. But it doesn't matter, since you didn't sign up to be a leader. You just show up, do your shift, and go home.
And you already told us that we the people shouldn't expect leadership from Washington.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It has been replaced by people who make ugly posts, even though they tell us that life is too short to waste time dancing with them.
That's a slippery slope. That means that one side will stake out a position far beyond what it really wants, and then will "compromise" on getting what they really wanted in the first place. Sometimes, when the issue is between right and wrong, you have to stick up for right, not some half-wrong compromise.
That's also one of the most effective tools for destroying a nation. It's the old Marxist dialectic. Keep setting up a position way beyond what's right, the "compromise" and split the difference. With each repetition of the process, the side pushing for changes gets closer and closer to their goal. Sometimes, the best answer is "Enough! No more. We will go no further!"
Last edited:
It does every day. Just like having a Rottweiler around protects a junkyard. Or like how having 5000 nuclear bombs prevented a nuclear war.
Huh? How's that again, Slick? (Oh, brother...)
What do those things have to do with my point? There have been attempts in this country at armed insurrections. Lots of them. None have been successful.
But are you telling me that talk radio is using the public airwaves, regulated by the government, to carry out it's own armed insurrection?
Last edited:
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but my point is separate from radio. My point is about the Second Amendment protecting us from government tyranny.
Except that it doesn't. The Rottweiler example is good, because the junk yard owner THINKS the dog is protecting his stuff. But it really doesn't. Any more than a scarecrow protects the cornfield.
And I have no reason to believe the founding fathers were intending to give the people the means to overthrow their very carefully constructed government. Madison himself said that the checks and balances would prevent the tendency of government to devolve into tyranny. So they already thought about that.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Sorry A, but this time SMG is correct. That was why the states insisted on the 2nd amendment as part of the Bill of Rights before agreeing to ratify the constitution. They should have demanded a specific clause guaranteeing the right of secession, too. Just another example of how the founders may have been great thinkers but were lousy lawyers. After all, the constitution is essentially a contract, a sloppy and poorly worded contract.
There was considerable disagreement among the people representing the various colonies soon to be known as states. And in the end, THROUGH LEADERSHIP compromises were reached. The northern colonies held out to not allow slavery. But to have a chance of surviving as a nation they all understood the needed all states to be a part of the new "union".
A number of historians write that the Southern states got two things they wanted badly: (1) Slavery. (2) An armed militia (a.k.a. The Second Amendment) to protect themselves from slave uprisings, and to protect themselves from a national government that would used armed force to get rid of slavery. These historians indicate that the northern states had little stomach for the 2nd Amendment, but it was the price of compromise, the result of leadership among statesmen.
A clause providing for the right of "secession" might have doomed the new nation for an early demise.
Of course, if Talk Radio worked well, we would all know all of these little ins-and-outs already.
Overthrowing isn't the same as defending against tyranny. And the entire constitution was constructed to prevent government overreach, not just the separation of powers. The Second Amendment is no exception.
You mean SOME states. But I said the founding fathers. Two different things.
Allowing for secession is the cheap and easy way out. That's what the Iraqis want to do. Same with the Afghans. We won't let them. Because we know the consequences. The biggest selling point of this country is how people from differing heritages and experiences manage to live together. That's what makes this country great. Except some people don't like it. Sorry, secession isn't an option that you get because you don't like something.
The Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified unanimously. It wasn't about an "armed militia to keep down slave uprisings". In fact, it was one of the least controversial of any of the amendments. The people who lived in those days remembered the Revolution and the days before the Revolution. They understood what it meant to be able to defend against a government out of control.
There are a few talk hosts that can give that sort of a history lesson, but not many. After all it's radio, not a history class.
- Status