If the scenario you're postulating--a government wanting to take your rights away existed--what kind of subversive cheerleader or just plain coward wouldn't resist?
Posted on 04/11/2009 11:02:34 AM PDT by marktwain
I have never understood the Michael Savage phenomenon. He's loud, he's abrasive, and he's hardly the "conservative" so many apparently think he is. I guess tapping into the border issue has convinced some that he is a kindred spirit. For anyone who place the Constitution first, he is not.
Case in point, today's amazingly ignorant screed, "Why are the police outgunned?":
So I put the question to the Savage Nation. Is it time to ban assault rifles? What are they really needed for? We know, of course, that Savage has no business defining what we "need," although I can think of many tactical situations where an outnumbered peaceable armed citizen with a semiautomatic rifle could be instrumental in deterring violence.
But forget that--we don't need to justify our property to Savage or anyone else. Where do they presume to get the authority to tell us which firearms they'll allow us to own--and how badly do they want to take them from us?
Then there's this bit of injecting doubt and fear into weaker minds:
Of course, I can already hear callers telling me, “Well, Mike, if we’re armed with these weapons, the government can’t possibly take our rights away.” That is nonsense. If the government wants to take your rights away or imprison you for whatever reason, your owning an assault rifle is not going to stop it. Gee, I don't know, Mike. If the scenario you're postulating--a government wanting to take your rights away existed--what kind of subversive cheerleader or just plain coward wouldn't resist? And remember--this is the guy telling his listeners we're being run by a dictatorship--a gang--evil rulers intent on starting another Reichstag fire.
Assuming he believes it, he wants us to disarm for that?
Have you checked the number of gun owners lately, Michael? And have you looked into the honorable patriots in the military and peace officer professions who would not participate in carrying out tyrannical orders?
They call themselves "Oath Keepers". You might want to look into that. They impress me a lot more than you do.
What Savage is proposing is nothing less than taking away from Americans their last resort means of protecting themselves from unmasked tyranny--gutting the very core of the right to keep and bear arms--something envisioned as a necessity by the Founders and codified in the Bill of Rights. He is telling his listeners the Second Amendment is useless, so we might as well give it up.
Savage sets himself up as wiser than the Framers? I don't think so.
And it doesn't surprise me to see him resort to fabrication in this next display of either profound ignorance or deliberate misdirection:
So we have to ask: If the police are not allowed to have these types of weapons, then why is the public allowed have them. What planet have you been living on, Michael? Do you even make an attempt to know what the hell you're talking about? Have you fallen for the "patrol rifle" vs. "assault weapon" deception? Or the "Only Ones" deception?
This doesn't surprise me, either. I warned gun owners about Savage back when he threw his support behind gun-grabber Jerry Brown for California attorney general--you know--the same guy who failed miserably at making a dent in Oakland's violent crime rate, but who was--surprise--endorsed by all those non-Oath Keeper police groups.
Good grief, Michael, the entire concept of "the security of a free state" escapes you, doesn't it? Is it that you're not bright enough to understand that the more good citizens are armed, the safer society will be--including the "outgunned" police?
The judgment I initially formed about you has only been cemented with this latest subversive defeatism you've injected into the "conservative" dialog, Michael:
Anyone wasting time or money following this obnoxious carnival barker is chasing a sterile queen bee. If you've ever bought one of his books, congratulations. You just helped finance the further enslavement of ourselves and our posterity. Get this, Michael: We will not disarm. If you truly think that resistance is futile and disarmament will come easy, you've deluded yourself and anyone stupid enough to believe you or craven enough to want to.
And now that I'm through, Mr. Adams would like to have a word with you:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! ------------
A good Savage
That left a bad feeling in my stomach. I had an honorable, now-departed friend with that surname who served on Iwo Jima, and another who is one of the foremost champions of the right to keep and bear arms that I have the honor to know. Of course, they hadn't assumed the name, because they weren't pretenders. Anyway, now seems a pretty good time to remind you that it's not the name, it's the man.
sort of a Thomas Paine pamphleteer with a microphone
a firebrand but not a serious ideologue
PINGING THE INFIDELS.................
In the words of the immortal Barney Fife:
“He’s a nut”
It was been adopted and altered by so many people, there is no set definition anymore.
To the headline: good question.
Emotions, Savage is a male version of the angry feminist type, he vents and his followers get an emotional release.
Feelings matter (more to some than others), Michael Savage emotes and the audience finds release.
Because he isn’t a lap-dog; doesn’t tow the line for the republican party. An independent conservative who’ll speak his mind.
You won't find me following him.
I find comfort in knowing I’m not the only one who’s spitting mad about it all.
The writer of this article views this as a negative. Savage's fans view it as a positive.
I find myself nodding my head when I listen to Savage, then he stops my nodding with some boneheaded statement or another.
Hi attacks on the other conservative hosts is unwarranted, and openly self-serving, and seemingly based on jealousy. I’d rather our local station carried Mark Levin in that time slot.
I guess I don’t know any conservatives who listen to Savage. I did once and lasted for about two weeks. I’m not very bright so it took that long to realize that Savage is neither liberal nor conservative. He just sounds like a nut.
Michael Weiner (a.k.a. Michael Savage) is a radical leftist on many issues — and has nanny-state expectations one would expect to find from someone who has lived in big cities all his life.
Savage often lets his emotions get in the way of his thinking.
He lets his thoughts out.
He’s angry about where our nation is headed, and he sometimes makes mistakes in what he says.
He is not a carefully nuanced perfumed handkerchief, and I expect that he’ll come back on this issue and say the right thing in the end.
His vocal talents trended toward the Berserkers
As likely to harm friend and foe
His “show” was deleted from the station ~2 years ago
I've not missed it
I have listened to him on the drive home for the last 5-6 years.
Micheal Savage is not your typical talk show wussie pussie. He actually believes what he rants about.
He has gotten to the core of more issues than any of his competitors. He calls a spade a spade and a queer a queer!— which is offensive to wussified phony “conservatives”
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.