Jay Severin Pro 2nd Yesterday

[squarooticus]

I've found myself tuning in to Jay's show much less frequently since he has continued to call Mitt Romney a "real conservative" even after the passage of the "insurance-or-prison" program in MA. A real conservative would never champion such a thing.

Kyle

 

[KMaurer]

Folks, once you allow that a (allegedly former) criminal is not to be allowed access to firearms, yet is allowed out on the street, you're imbuing the firearm with that same mystical aura that gun-grabbers use to rile up anti-gun fervor prior to a ban.
...
Nope. If they are allowed out of the graybar hotel, they get it all back. If they can't be trusted with a gun, they stay in the clink...

The real problem with letting connvicted criminals out while they're still considered dangerous isn't that they might get a gun (or baseball bat or car or ...) and hurt someone with it, but that our fear of this happening leads us to view the average citizen as a potentially dangerous person, whose possession of guns or any other potential weapon represents a threat to all of us.

Ken

 

[Jay G]

The real problem with letting connvicted criminals out while they're still considered dangerous isn't that they might get a gun (or baseball bat or car or ...) and hurt someone with it, but that our fear of this happening leads us to view the average citizen as a potentially dangerous person, whose possession of guns or any other potential weapon represents a threat to all of us.

Ken

I consider anyone I don't know well to be a "potentially dangerous person".

I am amazed that anyone else would think otherwise.

(NOTE: ***NOT*** directed at you, Ken, nor anyone else posting at NES, just a general commentary...)

 

[Lynne]

I consider anyone I don't know well to be a "potentially dangerous person".

I am amazed that anyone else would think otherwise.

+1

 

[Cptn5spd]

I do listen to Severin from time to time, depending on his topic of discussion. I have become a big fan of Micheal Graham though, he has a good show in my opinion.

 

[csharpdev]

How do you decide when someone is no longer dangerous to society? Who gets to make that decision. Perhaps all crimes should have life sentances since the person may hold up a gas station again and is still a threat they should never be released... I don't think it's too much to allow them out of prison and not set them free. (i.e. don't give them their rights back)

 

[codenamepaul]

How do you decide when someone is no longer dangerous to society? Who gets to make that decision. Perhaps all crimes should have life sentances since the person may hold up a gas station again and is still a threat they should never be released... I don't think it's too much to allow them out of prison and not set them free. (i.e. don't give them their rights back)

100% wrong. They decide if they are going to be a danger, by reoffending. We merely get it proven. If 100% of the population at large was armed, the herd would be culled of this shit right quickly. Then those who are no longer a danger to society are actually contributors, if they too happen to off a scumbag.

Attitude is way out there. This is the same attitude that punishes a righteous gunowner for the misdeeds of some scumbag. Punishing the son for the sins of the father.

Ever think that restoration of full rights to some of these guys would instill in them the self respect it takes to be a responsible citizen? That there is forgiveness of their crime, due to paying their debt to society via prison? And not a life of scorn and villification for, perhaps, some youthful indiscretion or moment of stupidity,a moment of desperation or rage that caused them to snap.

Thought not, once a scumbag, always a scumbag. Right?

 

[dbhn]

I find it hard to believe that lives with his wife and daughter with all the crap he spouts off about women, especially asian women. Not saying it isn't true though, as he is pretty arrogant. I know as a husband and father of daughters speaking like that in general, never mind on the radio, is totally disrespectful of your family and wife. You might think it, but you don't say it.

Also, I heard Imus talk about him one morning and mention that at last year's Boston St. Pats event Jay came on pretty stong to one of their former female cast members (Carmalita?). Bernard said "I wouldn't classify it is an attempted rape, but..."

And about the criminals getting 100% of their rights back when released: it is great in theory or idealogy that they don't get out if they are not safe but that is not how it works. As others said, we limit them in other ways too. I don't see a problem with that.

Once you start breaking the rules your freedom quickly changes from a right to a priveledge.

Ideally I'd like to see all violent offenders, especially sex offenders, put away for ever. No questions asked. But if we can take guns away from violent people maybe we should take something else away from sex offenders. Seems logical to me.

 

[ArmedMainer]

I do listen to Severin from time to time, depending on his topic of discussion. I have become a big fan of Micheal Graham though, he has a good show in my opinion.

When Severin moved to his new house in MA last fall Micheal Graham filled in for him for a week. Maybe Graham is OK now but that week he sounded like a clueless lunatic. Next time I hear his show I'll listen to the whole thing and give him another chance.I listen to Severin quite a bit at work and as someone here pointed out I'm surprised at his stance on Iraq. He does make some good points on it though and takes the time to back it up with the actual laws and where his listeners can look it up for themselves. I'm not saying it hasn't been done but I've never heard anyone challenge his stance on Irag and be able to back it up.

 

[News Shooter]

I left him during the 04 campaign

The two-faced bastard would claim to be for Bush and then spend the entire show bashing the war and everything Bush related. Chicken sh-- if you ask me.

I still say he's nothing but a weasel with good PR

 

[csharpdev]

I was thinking last night about the restoration of rights to released criminals. At first I was thinking the 2A should be the last right restored. Then I thought he's probably from a bad neighborehood (esp. if he was in a gang) and he probably "needs" a gun more than any of us do (not that need is a requirement). If Joe Gangbanger decides he wants to lead a normal crime free life he'll never be able to leagally have a gun to defend himself and if Joe Gangbanger chooses to return to a life of crime he'll get a gun anyway. Joe is probably more likely to return to his life of crime if he can't defend himself against his former coworkers. Deny him his right to privacy instead until he has proven he can function productivly in society and if he returns to his life of crime you can bag him faster and easier and probably bring a few others down with him this time.

 

[csharpdev]

Ideally I'd like to see all violent offenders, especially sex offenders, put away for ever. No questions asked. But if we can take guns away from violent people maybe we should take something else away from sex offenders. Seems logical to me.

I used to say the punishment for rape should be public castration with a shotgun... and the victim or her father should have the option to pull the trigger.

Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but I'd bet rape would decline quickly.

 

[Jay G]

I used to say the punishment for rape should be public castration with a shotgun... and the victim or her father should have the option to pull the trigger.

Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but I'd bet rape would decline quickly.

Sure would cut down on the rate of recidivism...

 

[dbhn]

For some of them nothing is too harsh. I'm all for putting them down immediately like bad Pit Bulls. Once they bite someone they can no longer be trused.

 

[FunYun]

If you can't trust them then why are you letting them out of prison?


"We're going to let you out of prison, but since we know you will re-offend you can't have any guns."

That doesn't sound intelligent at all.

 

[codenamepaul]

I was thinking last night about the restoration of rights to released criminals. At first I was thinking the 2A should be the last right restored. Then I thought he's probably from a bad neighborehood (esp. if he was in a gang) and he probably "needs" a gun more than any of us do (not that need is a requirement). If Joe Gangbanger decides he wants to lead a normal crime free life he'll never be able to leagally have a gun to defend himself and if Joe Gangbanger chooses to return to a life of crime he'll get a gun anyway. Joe is probably more likely to return to his life of crime if he can't defend himself against his former coworkers. Deny him his right to privacy instead until he has proven he can function productivly in society and if he returns to his life of crime you can bag him faster and easier and probably bring a few others down with him this time.

He sees the light!!!!That was the point of my last post.

How would you do the privacy thing tho'?

 

[Garys]

J
On the flip side, he does believe we will eventually loose the private citizen's right to have firearms in the US altogether.

At least he's consistent. He's been saying this all along despite the fact that more and more states are passing RTC and Castle Doctrine laws. The other thing he's consistent about is being wrong. Despite his claims to the contrary, he usually gets it wrong. Bush will lose in 2000, Bush will lose in 2006, and a bunch of his other predictions were all wrong.

Gary