Conservative radio host Jamie Allman has been fired resigned from both his talk and radio show after threatening to sodomize Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg with “a hot poker.”
It all started last month when Allman, who hosts, er, hosted the ratings-topping conservative talk show The Allman Report, made a sexual threat against 17-year-old Hogg in a now-deleted tweet.
Related: Right wing radio host disowns bi daughter on the air
“I’ve been hanging out getting ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg’s ass tomorrow,” he wrote.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The vulgar hate tweet, which was sent on March 26, prompted several advertisers to pull their ads from The Allman Report, and eventually led to it being canceled.
“We have accepted Mr. Allman’s resignation and his show has been canceled,” a spokesman for Sinclair, the country’s largest broadcaster, announced this week.
Allman’s radio show on KFTK in St. Louis has also been canceled after the station initially said “Jamie’s taking a couple of days off.”
Before becoming a right-wring radio hate monger, Allman was the spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Related: Homophobic radio hosts’ obsession with army general’s sucking abilities seems kinda, well, gay
Don't forget to share:
BitterOldQueen
I don’t know if David Hogg is going to solve America’s gun problem, but he’s doing an outstanding job of cleaning up our airwaves.
Me2
LMAO!
Stilinski26
Ya good going because of him more people have now registered with the NRA
DCguy
It is VERY interesting that the mere SUGGESTION that people should not be allowed to buy military style weapons without background checks invites such RABID freakout style rage.
That right there tells you it’s about money, and the NRA is paying it’s stooges well.
Good on David Hogg. Laura Ingraham has now lost around 26 sponsors, she’s the next one to need to polish up her resume it looks like.
mhoffman953
That’s odd my comment was promptly removed for stating that automatic military style weapons are already banned
DCguy
It’s so cute when the anti-American pro-NRA account tries to claim a post says something it didn’t. Notice how I said “Military Style Weapons” and the troll account tried to pretend that I said “Automatic Military Style Weapons”?
In other words, the troll account could not dispute my statement so it tried to invent a phony comment that it could then argue against.
How sad is it that they KNOW they have to lie to defend their point??
Cylest Brooks
DCguy, please stop referring to other accounts as trolls, no matter how vehemently you believe it. Consider this a warning.
I know that you disagree with him, and that’s fine. Focus on the topic, please.
mhoffman953
@DCguy
How am I anti-American now? Plus I’m sure I can recall what my post said, I wrote it. The military uses automatic weapons. Those same weapons are not sold to the public. If you aren’t referring to the weapon being automatic, then what other feature makes one weapon “military style” versus non-military style?
Additionally, you seem to be violating Queerty’s comment policy by constantly calling me a troll. Maybe one day you can respond without having to resort to name calling
mhoffman953
@DCguy
To further illustrate my point, which of these 2 guns do you claim are “military style”?
https://i.imgur.com/sIiLKrk.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bsHl5jj.png
I see many people who don’t own guns use the term “military style” without ever knowing what it even means. So which of those two is military style, the top or bottom one?
brickdr66
mhoffman953 Then how does the public acquire these weapons?
mhoffman953
@brickdr66
“Then how does the public acquire these weapons?”
The guns I listed or automatic weapons? The public cannot get automatic weapons. None of the guns that I listed are automatics. The public can get semi-automatic weapons by visiting a gun store, passing a background check, and having enough money to purchase a semi-automatic.
I’m not sure the point of your question
ChrisK
I swear to God it’s all the fu#king same. The Catholic Church and the alt righters. Either getting busted for Kitty fu#king or becoming a right-wing hate hacks.
Cylest Brooks
I appreciate the hashtags that allowed you to beat the system on your third try, but the issue isn’t the word FUCKING… it’s the blanket generalizations.
To be clear, I don’t disagree with you. But I still have to apply the rules evenly across the board, and these umbrella statements are literally against the rules.
I’m leaving it up for a while so you have a chance to see this comment, and then I will delete it. <3 Thanks for understanding.
Polaro
Cylest, you have a difficult job. I sympathize, but you need to chill a bit. There is a known problem regarding hypocrisy in these groups. That’s his point and it isn’t without merit. Just my opinion.
Cylest Brooks
@Polaro, I’m perfectly chill, thank you. Whether or not his point has merit is not the question. Making umbrella statements about a group of people is a violation of the new comment policy.
As I stated, I agree with the points that he made. But I’m not paid to delete the comments I don’t agree with and leave the ones I do. I am paid to enforce a comment policy and to help move the comments in a more positive and uplifting direction. I am not personally without an agenda, but Queerty is. And for the purpose of moderating these comments, it’s not my personal beliefs that dictate how I choose to respond when content violates the rules.
Troyfight
“ram a hot poker up his ass” …..what a jerk. Allman’s arrogance….
Roan
No one needs a military style, assault style, Ar-15 style, high capacity style, weapon of mass destruction style or whatever you want to call it. And yes, I’m purposely using these terms to illustrate the hair splitting and loopholes the gun nuts find to twist the argument.
Harley
But what else can they get to prop up their lack of manhood. Those metal penis extenders help when they look down and see a big hole where their penis should be. MAGA/s
mhoffman953
@Roan
Purposely using incorrect terms doesn’t get your point across and makes you seem misinformed. There are no hair splitting terms, it’s cut and dry what the terms mean. If you want a solution, then you have to be clear on what that solution is in your opinion. The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect the citizens from a foreign invasion or from a tyrannical government should that ever arise, which it has consistently happened throughout history with unarmed populace.
@Harley
Your argument seems be anger towards men who own guns by claiming they merely own guns because they have small penises. Many women own guns as well. If we just start banning things because you feel it symbolizes a propping up of one’s lack of manhood, then we’ll be banning anything that gives the slightest hint of masculinity
Cylest Brooks
I argue your point “If you want a solution, then you have to be clear on what that solution is in your opinion”. I think that’s false. It’s totally fair for a person to say “I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that too many of these guns are ending up in the hands of folks who ought not have them, and too many children are dying because of it… and something needs to change” and that’s just fine.
I am CERTAIN that you have opinions about topics for which you do not know the right answer or solution. To expect any person to be silent until they have an answer is… unenforceable and illogical.
The 2nd Amendment was written to preserve slavery. Period. No matter how you slice it. The militias that it speaks about preserving were confederate ones, planning to rise up against the government over slavery who wanted to be armed when the fight broke out. It no longer applies to modern America for three reasons:
1) The militias it referenced no longer exist. There are no militias in America today.
2) The American government has become much larger than it used to be. No AR-15 is going to protect you against the largest military in the world.
3) It’s only supported today in the context of white people, continuing it’s long history of racist roots. If you believe that the law protects the rights of citizens to rise up against an oppressive government, then you’d have to be actively trying to arm groups like BLM, DACA recipients, Indigenous people, and other groups that are facing VERY REAL threats from the government and have no power to fight back, but I don’t see you advocating for arming any of those groups.
Like your complaint about Roan, I’m not going to be able to offer you a clear solution to this issue. I don’t know what that is. But I know that for most of my life, I was taught that a person’s constitutional rights END the moment they start to negatively impact another person’s constitutional rights… and I believe that we have reached that point regarding gun safety in America. A child’s right to feel safe at school and to receive an education from teachers who feel safe at school is more important than a person’s right to own an assault-style weapon if those weapons are being regularly used to harm children.
mhoffman953
@Cylest Brooks
Ok, let’s unpack everything there since there’s a lot of information you gave. First, let’s handle this statement:
“I am CERTAIN that you have opinions about topics for which you do not know the right answer or solution. To expect any person to be silent until they have an answer is… unenforceable and illogical.”
Sure, I have opinions of topics which I don’t know what the solution should be. Therefore, I don’t argue in support of any one side. An example of that for myself would be abortion (not looking to get into that debate, just giving an example). I’ve listened, read, and understood both sides of the argument and I don’t know which side is right; thus, I won’t argue on how that issue should be dealt with.
However, based on the rest of your response, as with the response of others, it is clear that you have a “solution” which you favor and that would be to change or end the 2nd Amendment which you hinted at in your final paragraph. Would you be satisfied if this was addressed as a mental health issue and a security issue? If you answer no to that, then you do favor a solution.
With the idea of school shootings, this is both a mental health and security issue. If we get into other gun violence, then it becomes gang / crime related.
Next, I’ll address your three criticisms of the 2nd Amendment
“1) The militias it referenced no longer exist. There are no militias in America today.”
George Mason stated that the “militia” mentioned in the Bill of Rights are the American people. It’s everyone. As it even states in the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to situations of a tyrannical government.
“2) The American government has become much larger than it used to be. No AR-15 is going to protect you against the largest military in the world.”
Absolutely it would. For example, let’s assume the US government now becomes tyrannical and begins killing it’s own people in an authoritative police state. In such cases, not all military personnel would follow suit. Some would take sides in such an extreme situation where some would side with the people, which means it would be a very basic fire fight with the American people outnumbering the remaining military.
Additionally, a great example of basic rifles such as AR’s and AK’s being used to stop the US military is none other than Vietnam. The Vietnamese fought of the American military’s fire power by hiding in grass and using AK-47’s. A more modern day example would be the war in Afghanistan. Terrorists living in mountains and caves defeated countless numbers of US soldiers.
Giving the American people the right and option to bear arms, stops any sense of a tyrannical authoritative police state from ever happening.
“3) It’s only supported today in the context of white people, continuing it’s long history of racist roots. If you believe that the law protects the rights of citizens to rise up against an oppressive government, then you’d have to be actively trying to arm groups like BLM, DACA recipients, Indigenous people, and other groups that are facing VERY REAL threats from the government and have no power to fight back, but I don’t see you advocating for arming any of those groups.”
The Bill of Rights grants individualized rights to all American citizens. I’m for all American citizens having equal rights. If a black person wants to own a gun legally and passes a background check, I have no issue with that. I’m not sure why you are assuming that I only think the Bill of Rights applies to white people when I never said such a thing.
However, you are now turning the debate of preserving the Bill of Rights into a discussion on discrimination when that is not what this discussion is about. None of the groups you mentioned experience anything close to a tyrannical government in the present day. We live under democratic rule, which places the power in the hands of the people. Those groups you mentioned exercise this right through peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. A tyrannical government by definition is the opposite of that. For reference, this would be governments similar to Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, or Joseph Stalin who are the most recent example of tyrannical governments from the 20th century.
“A child’s right to feel safe at school and to receive an education from teachers who feel safe at school is more important than a person’s right to own an assault-style weapon ”
I agree that school shootings are a tragedy but our country already has gun laws for schools. Joe Biden introduced legislature that makes many schools “gun free zones”. Clearly, that didn’t work because criminals don’t follow laws. If someone wants to kill people, they’ll use whatever weapon is accessible. They’ll steal a gun, they’ll use a truck, throw a pressure cooker filled with nails, use chemical gas, fly a plane into a building, etc. It would make more sense to enforce existing laws rather than throwing out more and more laws that will do nothing to deter murder.
Some states with the toughest gun laws out there experience high gun violence rates. Some states with lax gun laws, experience low gun violence. There is no data to show that tougher gun laws unequivocally deter murder. This is a mental health and security issue.
Heywood Jablowme
“No” militias? A very quick internet search turns up at least a dozen notorious groups that at least call themselves militias. True, they’re all right-wing wackos, but (a) that doesn’t mean they’re NOT militias in the 2nd Amendment phrasing, and (b) that doesn’t mean different types of militias couldn’t happen.
Think of the 1980s-’90s Pink Panthers, the gay defense group that prevented a lot of gay-bashings. Suppose gay-bashings had become so frequent and so bad that they’d needed guns. Then wouldn’t they be a militia? In the ’90s I was in a night-time neighborhood watch group; we actually discussed arming ourselves (we didn’t) but if we had, wouldn’t that be a militia?
I’ve spent the past several weeks since Parkland arguing (on other forums) with the loonies who think the 2nd Amendment was written so the public could defend itself against “tyranny.” There are plenty of reasons to regard this as nonsense. See the Supreme Court case Dennis v. United States (1951). Also there’s the fact that the few uprisings against “tyranny” (as defined by the extremists) were all disastrous failures. Some might consider them “noble” failures, but they were all failures. The Confederacy, sure. The Whisky Rebellion, yep. The labor uprisings of 1877, 1893 (the Pullman strike) and 1913. David Koresh & the Branch Davidians. Ruby Ridge. The feds always disagree (go figure!) and the feds crush the uprisings.
But that doesn’t mean there are “no” militias, or that a sane and useful militia with a specific lawful purpose couldn’t exist.
Cylest Brooks
Heywood, that’s a fair point. Perhaps suggesting that there are ZERO militias in America today was inaccurate, since any group can call itself a militia based on the definition of the word.
brickdr66
Thank you Roan
wajmgirl
@Cylest Brooks
Though I wonder how many of these groups found via google search would qualify as “well-regulated”? I’m honestly curious where that line falls between, well, “regulated” and “we made a facebook page with a good header graphic”.
gft77
I find it very enlightening when these “anti-gay” folks like Jamie Allman make comments about putting objects up other men’s butts. Perhaps Mr. Allman should ask himself why he’s fixated on such things.
Heywood Jablowme
Yes. He really wants to put a certain, um, appendage up there!
Kangol
The hysteria among right-wingers and gun nuts over these young people’s demonstrations on behalf of their deceased classmates, other children killed by guns in school, and people in general killed as a result of the easy availability of firearms in the US is really telling.
It’s also telling that the kind of violence that this “straight” conservative psycho Allman wants to enact on a peaceful, articulate teenager is extremely sexualized with a strong air of torture and homophobia. Some of you may know this, but in the 14th century English King Edward II allegedly was murdered by hot poker up his behind. I’m not sure if this what Allman had in mind, but it’s a bizarre and horrific form of torture and murder to invoke, and even sicker to suggest that he’d enact it on anyone, let alone a defenseless teenager.
gjg64
And I bet the Catholic Church will welcome him back to a nice cushy job.
marinetti
How Edward the Second-ian
Daniel-Reader
Hope the victim of the threat gets a restraining order against this unhinged person. Is he going to jail for making a specific threat of bodily harm against a minor?
tham
What’s crazy about the 2nd is that everyone forgets the “well-regulated militia” part.
Umm, that’s good speak for umm…rules, lots of thorough rules…well instructed and frequently check up upon.
well-regulated.
DCguy
So back to the original point, a commentator in support of the NRA said that he wanted to assault and harm the teenaged survivor of a mass shooting.
Mandrake
I’m especially impressed by David Hogg’s perseverance and confidence. I have not heard anything from his parents. They’ve let him take on his mission alone, and he seems to be rather independent and resilient with it for a senior high school student.
Cylest Brooks
I agree.
James Hart
The right to bear arms is as American as apple pie.
Cylest Brooks
Apple pie isn’t being used as a tool to commit mass murder. So I’m not sure why your statement applies to this conversation.
mhoffman953
@Cylest Brooks
You clearly missed his point then. All of our rights as presented in the Bill of Rights is what makes America unique. As Thomas Jefferson said, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth…and what no just government should refuse”.
Without those rights, we would not be a free democracy controlled by the people. If you feel that one amendment isn’t representative of America, then that feeling could apply to all amendments (freedom of speech, privacy, due process, equality before the law, etc).
wajmgirl
@mhoffman953
But those things can and have been amended (aka, hatespeech or ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ scenarios, threats of violence).
Bob
Why is it that the 2nd Amendment, written 246 years ago applies to weapons designed and made a few years ago? The ‘right to bear arms’ applied to single-shot muskets. The writers would be horrified to see the weapons we’ve created.
mhoffman953
@Bob
“The ‘right to bear arms’ applied to single-shot muskets”
That is false and you’re showing that you don’t know your history. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say muskets only. Rifles existed in the 1700s as well as the 1600s. Single-shot muskets weren’t the only weapon back then. The Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock rifle existed back then which had a magazine that could hold 30 rounds as with many other rifles.
If someone used your stance for all of the amendments in our Bill of Rights, then should freedom of speech only apply to speech written on parchment and with quill pen (1st Amendment)? Should people’s cars, computers, and cell phones be subject to unreasonable searches since they didn’t exist back then (4th Amendment)?
If you’re willing to use that argument for an amendment in the Bill of Rights, then it should apply to all, which is nonsense. If our Bill of Rights only holds true at the time it was written, then we have no rights.