Radio Host Michael Savage turns pro gun control

mdmp5

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
  • May 7, 2009
    5,086
    2,507
    I’ve listened to Michael Savage on and off for years, but more consistently this year than ever. He has proclaimed himself to be an independent conservative since he has been on talk radio, and definitely assisted in getting Trump elected.

    He’s always seemed to defend the second amendment. However, he started to fly off the handle after the Vegas shooting with some off color remarks concerning guns and gun rights supporters. I thought he got some blowback from his fan base because for weeks, he made no mention of it again.

    Well, he started up some nasty rhetoric again on Monday in the wake of the awful Texas church massacre. For a guy whom I thought was one who aligned himself with the views of most conservatives, his monologue was unrecognizable. I really lost respect for the guy because he sounds just like a radical gun control advocate. Except he is even worse. Apparently, because “he is a gun owner, and was on the rifle team in high school, where he shot 22 cal rifles in the basement of Jamaica high school, he knows all about guns.” Yet he refers to the rifles used as machine guns, and is calling for an outright ban on “assault weapons” as well as “30 round clips”, because there is no “need” for them. After the Vegas shooting, he was lamenting that Congress was looking to legalize “silencers”. According to Savage, “you don’t need a silencer unless you are an assassin.”

    He also said some really crazy shit that seemed parroted from joe Biden, I.e. “all you need for home defense is a shotgun or a handgun. And it is impossible to effectively aim a rifle in the dark.” He also says that an “assault weapon” is the worst gun for home defense because it “can shoot through walls and kill your family.”
    Then he went on to assault any “gun nut who believes in guns as a protection from a tyrannical government”, as well as a protection against an armed assailant.

    I don’t know about any of you guys but this really beat up my morale. Not only are we against the usual suspects but now a historical conservative and well as other Republicans are forming “common sense” about guns. I honestly don’t know if we are going to win this battle because the emotion seems to be a strong driving force. The NRA has already been demonized as the Antichrist, which is ironic because they are not always on the side of their supporters anyway. Any rebuttals to anti gun rhetoric at times like this is met with extreme hostility and shaming. I wish these shootings would end, but they seem to be more common since 2012. The question is why, but I’m certain it’s not because of more guns or less gun laws. What do you guys think?
     
    Last edited:
    I didn't hear it but had I, that would have been the end of me as part of his audience. I have a personal rule not to patronize people or organizations I feel promote either unconstitutional ideology or attempt to subvert the constitution.
    The list is rapidly growing.
    Fwiw, I also try to follow Proverbs 26:4.
     
    How much pull does Michael Savage really have?

    Not that much

    Fuck him and his opinions. He'll find out soon enough the meaning of getting Zumboed.
     
    How much pull does Michael Savage really have?

    Not that much

    Fuck him and his opinions. He'll find out soon enough the meaning of getting Zumboed.

    He’s got a large fan base, but I’m sure most are in opposition to his comments, and this isn’t really about pull. I was alluding to how demoralizing it is to watch a prior ally suddenly turn against your values in an instant.
     
    Michael Weiner (Savage isn’t his real name) was a flaming commie liberal radio host before he figured out the money in talk radio was in being conservative. One look at him should have told you all you needed to know.
     
    He's done this before. I don't recall which shooting it was, probably Sandy Hook, but he came out afterward supported outright banning of "assault" rifles and standard capacity magazines.

    A few days or weeks later he backtracked and rethought his comments, but as you can see he is getting back to form.

    He's a Brooklyn/Berkeley, nanny-state big government "progressive" at heart.
     
    Hmmm... Reminds me of another staunch 2A supporter, Mr. Ruger, may he rot in peace. He smelled a scam and helped write the 94 gun ban and originally had a deal to sell 20rd. mags for the Mini-14, which he was desperately trying to put in front of the M4, but that blew up on him when Cliton changed it to 10rd. mags across the board.

    If he can't coax you to buy his shit, he'll side with the government to get a ban that doesn't affect him but destroys his competition. Ruger did that, tried anyway, and I still won't own another Ruger --I built a 10/22 from all aftermarket parts (and it's much nicer I might add). Smith sided with Cliton and paid a huge price too; I mostly limit my revolver purchases to pre-Cliton models, ie, no key.
     
    Weiner (Savage) is a fucking boor and a buffoon. Just remember he gave money to Moonbeam Brown. In the afternoons I have a choice between him, that other so-called-conservative squish Medved, and a local talk show host up in Denver. I listen to her.
     
    I too, like JM Glasgow and others, thought you meant Savage firearms Co. and thought WTF???
    You do them a disservice as they are not that way.
    Maybe change the Headline and put Michael before Savage? The Libtards will use that as ammo for their spin on things. Just my thoughts. FM
    Did you think that out when posting?
     
    No it didn’t occur to me, but then again, I clearly stated what this was about in the first sentence. That’s why you shouldn’t get news from headlines alone
     
    Last edited:
    I didn't just take it from the "Headline", I read all of the post and all of the replies.
    My post is that others may not read the whole thing and only the headline and use it in a wrong way or have their minds addled.
    Glad to see you changed it as it make more sense to me now. I meant no disrespect.. FM
     
    Last edited:
    We're giving titles to threads in The Pit more credit than is due. Our egos are writing checks we can't cash.

    Anybody who reads a thread title and forms a carved in stone opinion from it without reading the post behind it, or following a link therein, probably can't pour piss from a boot, either.
     
    The OP caved under the pressure. Meanwhile, I called Savage and he said he knew all along it was about him. Savage Arms was to busy filling orders for Wal-Mart to comment. In fact, they never heard of this site until now.
     
    I got the popcorn, unleaded gas, Slim Jims, Kools, 'Boros, and Parliament Lights concessions.

    [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"800","width":"600","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/oWeAMW2.jpg"}[/IMG2]
    (Image is merely representational and does not intend to convey any verisimilitude to my stated concessional reservations in this post.)
     
    Hmmm... Reminds me of another staunch 2A supporter, Mr. Ruger, may he rot in peace. He smelled a scam and helped write the 94 gun ban and originally had a deal to sell 20rd. mags for the Mini-14, which he was desperately trying to put in front of the M4, but that blew up on him when Cliton changed it to 10rd. mags across the board.

    If he can't coax you to buy his shit, he'll side with the government to get a ban that doesn't affect him but destroys his competition. Ruger did that, tried anyway, and I still won't own another Ruger --I built a 10/22 from all aftermarket parts (and it's much nicer I might add). Smith sided with Cliton and paid a huge price too; I mostly limit my revolver purchases to pre-Cliton models, ie, no key.

    You do know that the Smith deal was when a British company owned them and had no clue about American's and their guns. The British company bought Smith for 112 million in 1987.

    Clinton deal was March 2000. By December 2000 the stock price was down to $0.19. Saf-t hammer bought the company for 15 million plus 30 million in debt and pretty much instantly started to get out of the Clinton deal.

    Just saying I dont begrudge the current owners.

    Ruger screwed us but he is dead and his sons have made amends.

    If you hold a grudge forever and dont forgive then there is no real incentive to change now is there.
     
    How would ruger benefit from 20 rd mags? There have been 20 rd mags for the AR since its inception if I’m not mistaken. You are saying that the mini 14 was going to be excluded?