|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Posted on 08/01/2012 7:06:33 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch
|
I'll never listen to this POS ever again. Gone.
Savage is huge flip flipper.
He’s always changing his mind on major issues.
Vichy Republicans.
—I wonder what he thinks a “barrel magazine” is?
Yesterday, I turned on the radio at 6PM EST, and heard Mark Levin instead of that bitter, hateful, whining SOB, Savage, and I rejoiced at the local station’s choice, one that I have been wishing for for a long time, until the show was pre-empted for an Orioles baseball game. So, I listened to the streaming audio on my IPhone.
Savage is far more right than wrong on things, although he’s wrong on this particular issue. When he does get one wrong, his detractors shout it from the roof tops.
No problem. When the “authorities” are barred from using full automatic or semi-automatic weapons against Obama’s subjects, and all criminals are disarmed, we’ll consider complying. The idea behind the Second Amendment was to be able to meet force with force, after all.
Scalia views 2nd Amendment issues the same way he views other Constitutional issues. He's very consistent. It may work for or against an salient issue of yours, but to say they flip-flop is false.
chuckle...It seems the idea of a right has escaped our ‘learned’ friends. The BOR isn’t a series of laws (ie privileges) but an enumeration of God given rights, a declaration of limits on govt in relationship to the governed. Rights aren’t conferred by men. As such any man who attempts to limit or curtail them has overstepped their authority. Its not for men to limit or negotiate them away, we’re caretakers only.
Savage is just a self-important windbag. I’m not sure why anybody still pays attention to this guy.
From a strictly Constitutional perspective, I think Scalia is probably right — limited, narrow and reasonable weapons regulation is probably Constitutional. That it may be Constitutional doesn’t mean it is a good idea. It means it is permissible, not advisable.
For the most part, we’ve already won this war. Nobody’s even making any headway against us.
For instance, even 2nd amendment advocates prefer limitations on convicted felon access to weapons, access for those under 18, or for those ruled mentally incompetent. Most are OK with instant background checks. These are reasonable, narrowly constructed limitations ... and they are Constitutional.
Few (if any) rights enumerated by the Constitution are absolute ... there are limits on speech rights (time and place, libel/slander, threats, “fire in a crowded theater”, obscenity, intellectual property, etc). There are limitations on voting rights (no felons, etc.) ... at least theoretically. There are limitations on religious free expression.
I’m open to counterarguments ... but my kneejerk reaction is that narrowly-constructed regulation of weapons is likely Constitutional, even if it is a lousy idea.
SnakeDoc
I may have to take that back; the regime probably considers all conservatives to be criminals...
Both are 100% provably wrong on this point.
If they were correct then since the founding of this country no citizen would ever have owned a cannon. They have and they still do.
If We The People want to place limits on what arms are legal then a new amendment needs to be created and run through the entire process. The 2nd Amendment is completely silent on the number of bullets which can be held by any given fire arm and when the constitution is silent on something WE THE PEOPLE retain that right.
Thanks to scum lawyers and scum lawyers who became politicians and judges, the notion of We The People retaining anything the constitution is silent on has been buried by the ruling class who want nothing to do with our Creator Given Rights. You know, those are the rights we did not surrender to the government.
Maybe the Tea Party could REQUIRE all candidates to sign an oath to the American people and the Constitution that if they violate a single part of the Constitution they will promise to resign and if they don’t resign the Tea Party will refuse to support them and demand a recall.
So, I CAN go scream ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater? The press can write whatever they wish? Thanks for clearing that up.
That's why I stopped listening to the man back in 2005
Guns already are restricted. There is nothing new here.
“Otherwise, the Left will seize the day and they’ll end up banning much more than we ever would.”
I generally appreciate the Savage POV, but he is completely wrong on this one. Setting restrictions in hopes of precluding the libtards from doing more or worse is simply wrongheaded, in the most damaging way.
The libtards would see that move as an admission by the originalists and other conservatives that the Second Amendment (at least) is subject to interpretation beyond its words. And, they would certainly make political hay out of that notion.
That is a slippery slope I would rather avoid...
I agree, when the Government removes exemptions for itself from gun laws, then we can talk. Until then, I’ll own whatever I want for my defense and the defense of the nation.
Well you can have an abortion up to the 9th month, without parental approval even if you are a minor, and without telling your husband. There are no restrictions on your Constitutional Right To Abortion, apparently, and it isn't even actually, you know, IN the Constitution.
Hey Savage (and Scalia for that matter)
Where in...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
does it say you can restrict my rights?
With all rights come responsibilities. The Founders realized this and assumed the populace understood the concept of self government. We may chose to limit ourselves out of courtesy, deference, kindness etc to our neighbor but thats our decision not the govts. The greatest loss in this is self government and once thats gone all else is fair game. That is, a corrupt and stupid people can never be governed, only ruled. Im adding this b/c it seems you dont understand the concept. Liberals seem to be deficit in this area.
If you can store it, transport it, maintain it, and not be a danger to your nearest neighbor, you should be able to own it, even if you have to keep it in an 'annex' separate from the main house so it doesn't go off if the place catches fire.
During Colonial times, the 'battle ax' was replaced with the tomahawk, a device with utility as a tool and a weapon--and it was a fearsome weapon in the right hands.
Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders, the Tiffany Family gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower).
I do not accept Mr. Savage's argunents because they are without substance.
Were they more common, and thus more affordable, the only difference in me owning an M-60 (either the small arm or the tank) would be the amount of exercise I got when I went to the range, the amount of shooting I'd do, and the sort of noise I made there.
I would not suddenly choose different targets.
Oh, and (because I would not be the only one) the government would respect our rights just a tiny bit more.
Scalia used a qualifier— namely “carrying a weapon TO SCARE PEOPLE’
Founders had CANONS
Canons were on PRIVATE ships during the war of 1812
You might say what about TANKS, I say people OWN and USE PRIVATE PLANES which, might be used dangerously (a little sarcasm here)
The Second Amendment was about protection against an intrusive,out of control GOVERNMENT
Levin does better research and is more informative. Savage reminisces.
Levin does better research and is more informative. Savage reminisces.
The two or three morons who frequent his daily thread here on FreeRepublic agree with what ever Wiener says.
However, if you want to hear a story about his dog Teddy or spaghetti recipes, then “Savage Nation” is the place to be.
Just asking but do you believe the Deity has weighed in on federalism, i.e. The 9th and 10th amendments? My suggestion is that perhaps not all the rights in the BOR are endowed by our Creator.
When you look at gun control laws, America has the strongest gun control laws in the world.
Your problem is that you don't see a pattern here. I have a normal ability to see things clearly, and it took only a few days of listening to Wiener to know that Wiener is extremely harmful to the Conservative cause.
What's your excuse?
The only pattern I see is that you’re still the vile little puke you were when you used to disrupt our threads a few years back.
It's true in all things that the few ruin it for the many.
I see some potential here. Now apply this same method (seeing patterns) to your Dear Leader, Wiener. Take note of all the non conservative things he says. After a while you may wake up and realize that Wiener is playing you all for fools. You can thank me later.
No, youre no ‘just asking’, its a gotcha question and you know it. Read my posting, you clearly dont understand it.
Yes, times change. Firearms are not the same as in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was approved . Neither are life spans. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, most people died before age 65, so Justice Scalia and his cohorts on the bench have no business serving till they are 90+. A limit of 70 years of age in the SCOTUS would be an even greater improvement for our nation than limiting citizens’ RTBA to 19th century standards.
What do you think of that suggestion, Justice Scalia?
Sorry Michael.
I can no longer listen to your program or visit your website.
The one and only restriction I would ever consider for firearms is that anyone convicted or murderm, armed robbery or any violent crime involving a weapon should be denied the right of ownership. No other restictions.
Sorry Michael.
I can no longer listen to your program or visit your website.
The one and only restriction I would ever consider for firearms is that anyone convicted or murder, armed robbery or any violent crime involving a weapon should be denied the right of ownership. No other restictions.
Only morons listen to him. He is a showman out for a buck and always has been.
Savage is calling for appeasement. That is always a foolish idea when dealing with those who do not respect our Constitution.
No, Im not saying that. Im saying that you need to apply self govt rather than centralize govt. Self govt isn’t about intellect, its about godliness. We’ve divorced ourselves so well from the concepts that discussions like this need to be undertaken to explain elementary ideas. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideas. Self govt was one of those ideas common to both Judaism and Christianity — Love God, love your neighbor as yourself. This is the foundation of self-govt. that the Founders understood and accepted — even the ones who weren’t ‘churched’. Central govt is about force, coercion and rule. It sets itself as god and denies His authority b/c it sees itself in that role.
You can’t walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun. You can’t buy a cannon. You can’t buy a grenade launcher.
YES, GUN RIGHTS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED.
I want a fricking 16 inch naval cannon, pisses me off I can’t get one!
I don’t have a comment on Savage. Don’t listen to him. But gun rights are already limited.
Yes.
You’re liable for consequences though.
Too many confuse acts with consequences, and wish to punish the former without regard to the latter.
Me too! But I don't want muslim immigrants to be able to walk into a store and buy a surface to air missle. And I really don't want to have to buy a bazooka just to keep up with the latest fad.
I think we should profile and only put heavy duty weapons in the hands of people who share the same religious, racial, political views and temperament as me.
It's too bad that humans have innate qualities that go directly against those you describe. It's just not a natural state for us. That's why they have to be written down.
You are spot on. If we “cave” by agreeing with Scalia in hopes that those on the left will meet us with a reasoned response, we are fools. Nose under the tent.....give them an inch...pick your metaphor. No good can come of this.
When you shoot so rapidly that your barrel gets hot and distorts, you'd be happy for a "barrel magazine"! Or used in a multi-barrel application, such as a gatling gun. ;)
Thanks for adding your sanity, against a lot of emotional Conservative-populism grounded in Utopian-idealism about “rights” that did not exist in practice when the Constitution was set.
And it is that Constitution and not our ideals about “natural rights” that Scalia took an oath to defend, which he does at least in his own positions.
Here’s my position on Amendments 1 & 2 for what it’s worth:
There should be ABSOLUTELY NO debate about the Second Amendment.
(a) It is NOT about hunting, target practice/competitive shooting or protecting your home and family.
(b) It’s sole purpose was to guarantee to We the People a method of replacing the gubmint if and when exercise of the FIRST Amendment rights failed to resolve conflicts.
(c) Had gun registration been in place in 1776, the Brits would have confiscated them all, and today we’d all be speaking with British accents.
END OF DISCUSSION.
You can’t walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun. You can’t buy a cannon. You can’t buy a grenade launcher.
YES, GUN RIGHTS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED.
I want a fricking 16 inch naval cannon, pisses me off I can’t get one!
I don’t have a comment on Savage. Don’t listen to him. But gun rights are already limited.
‘Utopia’ is here and now you just don’t see it. Jesus died for our sins and He gives us the choice to accept or reject that. You’re correct, by nature we dont seek God and require laws. However, He does call to all of us and its our decision to come or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Savage, himself a gun owner, added that laws restricting the ownership of certain weapons were not unheard of in colonial times, and he reminded listeners that "no freedom is absolute." 