He’s so proud of his Brady Campaign talking points, he sent them out in a mass e-mail today;

‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer’

Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.”

In this issue: Michael Savage is in distinguished company. Last week, he was virtually alone in placing partial blame for the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre on Hollywood.

Now esteemed director Peter Bogdanovich has joined the chorus. With that, Savage renews his call for a moratorium on violent movies, as well as a ban on body armor and certain kinds of ammunition.
________________________________________
“After the slaughter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, I immediately blamed the actors, the directors and the violence in the movies,” Savage reminded listeners, adding:
Nobody paid attention to it, because I’m only Michael Savage.

I’m not a legendary movie director, like Peter Bogdanovich, who I see from this morning’s Drudge Report more or less agrees with me.

Charles Hurt of the Washington Times also mentioned the connection between movie violence and the real thing, so I put a link up to his article on my website.

His article is called “An Open Letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers.”

Maybe you already read it. Maybe you want to move on. But I don’t want to move on.

I’m going to say this again: Last Friday I said they should ban body armor for civilians, and they should ban drum magazines of ammunition.

Yet my point was missed by almost everybody in the media

I’m a gun owner. I was on the rifle team in high school.

I absolutely would defend the Second Amendment. But let me tell you something: There’s a huge difference between the right to bear arms and the right to carry around a weapon that could shoot a hundred bullets at police.

You don’t need body armor or drum magazines to hunt deer.

We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen, because we have a communist in the White House who’s capable of doing anything.

(Emphasis mine) This man clearly has what I’ve come to call the “Beltway Disease” or the “Republican Disease”.  “We’ve lost and we’re going to lose more, so lets lose more in a way that’s a little bit more palatible by losing in a way of our choice.  It would be wise, my friend.”  Typical Republican– pretend to be on the side of liberty so you can woo us into submission.  Michael; go bang your head against a wall.  That, I would pay to see.

Oh, and; you do realize that city, county and state LEs are civillians, don’t you?  Just checking, Michael, being as you tell us on a regular basis that you are ever so highly educated.  Never mind that the CO shooter wasn’t wearing body armor, and that you’re asking us to be unprotected while the criminals could always get their armor, and their drum magazines, illegally under any “ban”.

Talk show host Michael Savage went on a tirade today, using many of the left’s anti-gun talking points while calling for a ban on drum magazines.  To paraphrase; “Do you need something like that to hunt rabbits?  Enough is enough!”  He used multiple hunting references, and said multiple times that he is a gun owner and a 2A “supporter” (more of the antis’ talking points).  I didn’t hear any of the callers’ responses (because I work for a living and can’t be glued to a radio) but here is my own.

First, Michael, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  This “need” test of yours is so obviously foolish that I won’t glorify it with a response other than to say; anything you have that you don’t absolutely “need”– turn it all in, sucker, or quit using a stupid argument like the “need test”.

Why would I want a 75 or 100 round magazine?  Deterrence, for one thing.  Mob control for another.  Are you familiar with the concept of suppressive fire?  The assault rifle (full automatic) isn’t typically used in battle for mowing down hoards of enemy, charging up a hill at you.  More often than not it is used for “suppressive fire”– pinning down opponents while you or your partners maneuver against them, or while others escape.  A semi-auto (especially one with a large magazine) can be used effectively for suppressive fire.  Remember the LA riots?  Suppressive fire is a legitimate tactic even against a lone attacker.

Overall deterrence is an important factor in an armed society.  That Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in over 500 years is some testament to that.  The American founders spoke of the deterrent effect when they started that an armed population would hold any government in awe.  “You’re never going to fight the government, and if you did, you’d lose” says Savage.  Not the point, says I.  Sure, you may lose, but when it is widely known that millions of Americans have the ability and the equipment to make any armed conflict a very costly one for the government, you have effective deterrence.  That is an extremely important point.

And Michael, seriously, I know you are aware of the fact that prohibitions make things worse.  When alcohol is prohibited, only outlaws will have alcohol, and things go all to hell– gangs get rich and powerful, corruption is rampant, and a general disrespect for the law is fostered.  When drum magazines are outlawed, only outlaws will have drum magazines.  That’s what you want?  Really?  I think you’ve been in San Fransicko for too long.

I don’t suppose you heard that the CO movie theater killer’s drum magazine jammed.  Be sure to get a good one.  The all-steel European 75 round AKM/RPK magazines with the ratcheting loading lever are very good.  I think I’ll get another one, in your honor, Michael.  We also use them in our high round count “torture testing” of our gun accessories, but as I indicated, I don’t need any reason to own them other than the fact that I damned well feel like it, Skippy.

Lastly; I’ve wondered for years whether the things you say on your show are from the heart, or if a lot of it just a shtick– playacting to what you think of as a dumb audience, for ratings.  I still wonder.