The boys are back! Should they be freaking out over the Glorious Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea? Or is it just the smell of the Kim-Chi in Dave’s second refrigerator?
Meanwhile, some Manteca Farmers – not Chris Teicheria who was off being funny with the German (Das – the singular, see? A little foreshadowing), save Manteca from imminent and ToTaL destruction.
Dave is having the kind of day that will make you want to take drugs. Except that you can’t. Why not? Because the pharmacy has become an impossible place to get them!
John is doing great! Although his work managed to offend his own sister… Read the rest of this entry
This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning “assault weapons” is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were “military” in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as “I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong” or “I am progressive so the Court is right?” Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment?
In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms:
(A) All guns are military weapons.
Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military.
Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted.
(B) All guns are military weapons.
The Militia is a military unit.
Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the basic assumptions of the axiom must be true. If the underlying presumption is false, the logic, regardless of how brilliant, will reach an invalid conclusion.
Did the Court base its ruling in a good axiom or upon a flawed presumption?
Editors Note: Dave recorded this show before the events of yesterday afternoon unfolded. It doesn’t change the basic theme that Dave was expressing, just know that it was recorded prior to Milo Yiannopoulos’ resignation from Brietbart. – Producer Henri
The government – at any level – cannot restrict your freedom of speech. Your employer or landlord can restrict your freedom of speech? Does that seem… right?
From a purely constitutional viewpoint, it is correct. But why is it so? What has employers and private entities so uptight that they feel the need to put limits on free speech? You don’t really need to look much farther than the Conservative Alt-right Fellow Traveler (his words, not mine), Milo Hanrahan (otherwise known as Milo Yiannopoulus).
The “in-your-face” approach to politics might be exciting and might be funny, But is it effective? Does it foster communication or intelligent conversation about issues and principles?
Look, I’ve never really been on the Milo Yiannopoulus (Hanrahan) train. I’m just not a big fan of the whole “in-your-face” school of rhetoric. Yes, I’ve done it too in Talk Radio, and I know that some believe that’s how you get ratings. But is being intentionally offensive (or provocative if you’re not the one being offended) in anyway effective? Or is it just a misrepresentation?
Yeah, I know, the left does it too. Where does the whole tit-for-tat, 2nd Grade playground approach to intelligent discussion end? Certainly not with people and actions that make some believe that freedom of speech is “dangerous…”
If you were to catch me off guard and ask me what I liked the least about being a Chat Show Host, I would tell you that hands down, without a doubt, not even close, it is the AHT’s (Aluminum Hat Theories) I get sent almost daily and asking (demanding) to know why I am “not talking about this???”
In Radio, one has to be more of a generalist. There it is an attempt to get the most amount of people listening to you for the longest possible amount of time. Trust me on this, Conspiracy Theories (AHT’s) are both terrible radio and attract pretty much the least amount of people for the least amount of time. Read the rest of this entry
So, in honor of the recent news from the Glorious Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (It’s none of those things. Watch Frontline for once!), we take you back to May 31, 2012, when Dave & John learned of the PRDK’s use of The Third Tunnel of Aggression, but didn’t get the T-Shirt…
Original Airdate: 31 May, 2012