Glenn Beck is Pro Gun Control. For Now.

Gun rights are the ultimate political litmus test. If a politician doesn’t support the right to keep and bear arms, if he or she doesn’t “trust” citizens enough to exercise gun rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, the politician shouldn’t be trusted with power. It’s that simple. Or is it? The Supreme Court’s McDonald decision OKed “reasonable restrictions” on our Second Amendment rights. Felon? Fuhgeddaboudit. Automatic rifle? Sorry Bub. Mandatory training for concealed carry? Yup. Licensing requirements? Them too. But not if you live in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont and parts of Montana. . .

Citizens in those locales who own a legal gun (legally) can carry a concealed firearm without any additional paperwork, permission or fees. Just buy it, put it in your holster and go.

Constitutional Carry is the real political litmus test. One that conservative commentator Glenn Beck failed.

To be fair, Glenn Beck had never heard of Constitutional Carry. And the celebrity hadn’t invited TTAG to his green room to discuss gun rights (even though we were at the NRA’s annual meeting). We sold our chinwag as a chance to get to know Beck the gun guy: shooter, concealed carry permit holder and collector. Which we did. Here’s the whole thing:

But you know how we roll. As the wounded felon says to Dirty Harry, I gots to know! So when Beck dropped the Obama, I asked the anti-liberal leading light if it was OK to deviate from the feature stuff and address a political question.

I described the concept of Constitutional Carry and asked Beck if he was for or agin’ it. Beck answered, eventually [7:28 in the full interview or the sound bite at the top of the post].

Beck first argued that firearms training (NRA style) is a good thing. Fearing that he was dodging the question, I interrupted his answer: should concealed carry training, registration, etc. be mandatory?

Beck jinked right, asserting that personal responsibility is also a good thing. True dat. In fact, I was convinced he was about to give Constitutional Carry the Glenn Beck Seal of Approval, and prompted him make the declaration. Not happening.

“I think we should take all this progressive nonsense of giant government and slowly unwind it as we teach ourselves to be more responsible,” Beck said. Later: “We’re not responsible enough to let someone make their own choices.”

I didn’t have time to process the idea of a slow ramp-up to freedom and Beck’s low opinion of the average Americans’ ability to control their own destiny. So Beck’s final determination of a thumbs up/thumbs down on Constitutional Carry came as a complete surprise.

“Long run? Yes. Short term? No.”

Dan and I looked at each other with something akin to shock. (Nick remained his stoic self.) Later, the three of us hashed-out the implications. There’s no way around it: Glenn Beck is in favor of gun control.

Beck doesn’t believe Americans are responsible enough for Constitutional Carry. Laws and regulations mandating concealed carry training, licensing and registration are OK with Glenn Beck.

For now.

The obvious question: if not now, when? Equally important, who decides when Americans are “ready” to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms without government interference? Politicians? Voters? The NRA? Glenn Beck?

Beck’s answer to Constitutional Carry embodies the exact same kind of paternalistic thinking that informs gun control advocates’ arguments. The average schmo is simply not responsible enough to exercise their Second Amendment rights without government intervention.

I understand that there are many gun rights supporters who support mandatory training requirements for concealed carry. Maybe even most. But that does not change the wording of the U.S. Constitution, nor the founding father’s clear intentions regarding citizens’ inviolable right to keep and bear arms.

It’s not about whether or not Constitutional Carry is a good or bad idea (although I don’t see blood running in the streets in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming and [parts of] Montana). It’s not even about the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment loophole. It’s about respecting individual liberty.

Glenn Beck is pro-Second Amendment. But I don’t think that means what he thinks it means.

comments

  1. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

    Honestly I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t been in the room and watched it myself.

    There’s no way around it — Glenn Beck, according to these comments, thinks that Americans aren’t responsible enough to be trusted with firearms. It’s the exact same line of thinking that Mayor Bloomberg uses to justify his own stance.

    1. avatar Mike OFWG says:

      Beck is a professed alcoholic, he knows he can’t be trusted around alcohol, so he’s projecting.

  2. avatar Chas says:

    GB is one of those guys “who believes in the Second Amendment…. BUT….”.

    I knew there was a reason I didn’t listen to anything he says.

    1. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

      Glenn Beck is one of the last guys we need to worry about.

      1. avatar moveableDO says:

        I agree. Stop attacking the “almost good enough” supporters. Beck is not on my list of anti-gun public figures. I bet if he knew how TTAG took his words to mean that he is pro-gun-control, I bet he would amend his answer…

  3. avatar Tomahawk says:

    Umm… not Wisconsin, that I’m aware of.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      D’oh. Long plane ride. Text amended.

  4. avatar "Dr."Dave says:

    Another media scum bag who doesnt think people deserve the right to be able to protect themselves?

    Oh, my, I nearly fainted.

    The Republicans are no better than the Democrats. No political power wants to preside over an armed body of citizens.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Not quite right. Mr. Beck believes we should be able to protect ourselves—with government approval. For now.

    2. avatar Truckman says:

      Wrong-Republicans are INFINITELY better than Democrats. Remember,Beck hadn’t even heard of Constitutional Carry until this interview. You can BET that after this he studied up on it,did a bunch of fact checking and looked at the implications. BTW-I agree that EVERY lawful gun owner should be able to carry,open or concealed,ANY gun he or she desires to carry,without needing permits or registration,etc. That’s not to say there aren’t lawful gun owners out there who are “accidents waiting for a place to happen”. What I’m saying is that it’s their RIGHT,and as per the laws and Constitution,they also have a right to be considered innocent of wrong doing UNTIL they commit a crime,as do all of us. THAT’S the biggest issue with Gun Control-it punishes lawful gun enthusiasts and “revokes” their right of “Innocence until Proven Guilty”. I say,if a gun owner does nothing illegal with his guns,leave him alone;if he commits a crime with a gun,THEN throw the book at him.
      To all who use the comparison “We have to register our CARS and get LICENSES to DRIVE,why shouldn’t we do that with guns?” That’s simple. Owning and driving your CAR is considered a LUXURY. As such,it IS subject to laws,rules and regulations. As much as I hate it,that’s how it’s seen,legally speaking. Owning and carrying your GUN is a RIGHT. NOT subject to infringement or alterations. BIG difference-apples-n-oranges.

    3. avatar moveableDO says:

      Not true. The R’s are absolutely NOT as bad as the D’s and never forget it… Let’s just keep the R’s feet to the fire.

  5. avatar Qajaqon says:

    Glen Beck, “I’m smarter that everyone. I alone know they answer. I will share it with you, but, first……. No, I won’t. No one is smart, responsible enough, prepared for all that ‘freedom’. This is America, land of the ‘not ready for that’. giggle, giggle.”

    Yah… “I’m not a progressive” he says.

    I agree. He does’t know the rights of americans and is willing to hold/keep them from citizens for what… “they’re not ready yet.”

    Controlling troll. Thats what he is.

    Progressives are free. Know their rights. Exercise their rights. Protect their rights. Fight for others to gain their rights.

    Send Beck back to get an education.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    I get it that many people think any restriction of any kind is out of the question, but I don’t see a problem with law abiding people being permitted and licensed. I think the difference is the anti’s want to restrict the permitting and licensing and I think the government should be required to issue permits as long as you are of age, are not a felon, and a US citizen, etc.
    We can debate the requirements but I think there needs to be some way to determine those that should be prevented from carrying a weapon. If taken to it’s conclusion constitutional carry would create more problems than it would solve. Just like drug legalization, the few people that would benefit from the legal change doesn’t take into account the problems it would create.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      “there needs to be some way to determine those that should be prevented from carrying a weapon”

      Why do you think that someone should have any authority over how another person peacefully uses his property?

      1. avatar Michael Bluth says:

        I’m all for constitutional carry, but there are most certainly people for whom I think access to firearms should be restricted: violent felons and those diagnosed as clinically unfit.

        It isn’t a property issue. If it were, an extension of your logic would be that any 12 year old that could get together a few hundred $$ for a car shouldn’t have anyone else tell them how to use their property.

        Its a constitutional issue, and we do restrict people’s constitutional freedoms all the time, but it ordinarily requires an individual order from a judge and/or jury. If you want to revoke someone’s 2nd amendment rights it should be by order of a judge.

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          First, children are subject to a legitimate authority in their parents. That aside, if your 12 year old didn’t harm anyone or other’s property or infringe upon other’s inherent rights, I’d have no problem with him operating his property.

          I don’t judge people on their potential to do harm, only upon their actual actions and consequences. The Constitution is supposed to be based on the principles of Natural Law, which holds that if a person obtains property through licit means then they can own and use that property for licit purposes. Being afraid that someone might harm another is no justification to abridge their natural, inherent rights.

  7. avatar Craig says:

    I’m curious, at the time of the framing of the constitution, a man’s ‘arms’ consisted of single shot weapons. Not weapons capable of dealing many, many rounds per min, as in the case of automatic weapons. Such weapons have the potential to cause chaos. True, most are very responsible. But of course, there are always those who would be out of the depth in a parking lot puddle. Every men has encountered these individuals. And if they are honest, will admit that they wouldn’t trust that person with a dull can opener let alone a firearm. And yet, that common sense assessment should be sacrificed upon the ideological alter of ‘freedom’? That is an argument that holds no credibility. Licensing and training does not ultimately prohibit gun ownership, what it does do though, is go a long way to limiting the idiot factor when it comes the ownership/implementation of firearms.
    I am aware that argument paints me as a defiler of freedom in your eyes. But the alternative view through mine, is that I am not willy nilly handing over a serious weapon to a complete incompetent. If that means a few extra steps in gun ownership for myself, fine, I’ll take the hit.
    You talk an awful lot about responsible Americans. A chief tenant of responsibility is being intellectually honest about how best to deal with those most grossly irresponsible. And on that measure, your argument resolutely fails.
    I will leave you now to congratulate yourself on how it is you who champions freedom.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      “I’m curious, at the time of the framing of the constitution, a man’s ‘arms’ consisted of what a soldier might reasonably be expected to carry into battle.”
      —–
      Fixed.

    2. avatar Josh says:

      Its easy to forget that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be a living document, not something to be worshiped and revered from afar; but a tool used to ensure democracy and man’s inalienable rights.
      They also knew that their document would become dated at times and need to be modified to keep up with the times. Its an open question. Should the 2nd Amendment be modified, made stronger, weaker, etc…
      Its not God’s Word… its a human document. The founder’s judgement is not superior to ours.. they wouldn’t have wanted it that way.
      Key thing is, whatever changes we make should have an eye towards our grandchildren’s needs as well as our own…
      I support the 2nd Amendment because it makes sense to me… not because I hold it in some high, lofty, semi-religious regard… George Washington would’ve never wanted to be worshiped… or held above reproach.. none of them would’ve.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        the writers of the Constitution intended it to be a living document

        No, they did not. That’s the Humpty Dumpty version of the Constitution: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

        The founders intended the Constitution to be taken as written. Changes were not taken lightly, hence the complex and lengthy amendment procedure. The “living document” theory is the hammer that the left has been using to warp and twist Constitutional language into what they want it to say and not what it says. Just like Humpty Dumpty.

        1. avatar Michael B says:

          +1

        2. avatar Josh says:

          Fair enough. My key thought on the whole thing is: lets not use immediate, fleeting populism to push for quick changes to the Constitution (the left’s dream tactic to taking down the 2nd amendment), and lets not use overly traditionalist, border-line ancestor worship to argue against any kind of change at all (right’s take on any changes at all (2nd amendment aside)).
          Guns aside, you can argue that the Constitution needs an update when it comes to corporations being considered citizens, intellectual property, eminent domain, etc… these things need to be decided one way or the other, not interpreted by a very subjective court.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          If the Second Amendment needs an update, there’s a procedure for that. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. If 2A opponents want to moot the right to keep and bear arms, they can try to amend the Constitution.

          What really frosts my pumpkin is the claim that honoring the Supreme Law of the Land is somehow “ancestor worship.” That statement leads me to conclude that you don’t understand what the Rule of Law actually means. Let me help — it means that you don’t make things up as you go along.

        4. avatar Josh says:

          Understood. I’m no lawyer… I approach this stuff more as a hobby. To me, Rule of Law always meant that no man or woman is above it, we all follow the same rules; and that if a law is determined by the vast majority of people to be imperfect, it is amended. But, I asked my lawyer friend at a bar tonight, and was told its a heck of a lot more complicated than that…. and that alot of folks have differing interpretations of what it means. He referred me to the wikipedia page.. and I gave up.. its huge.
          I don’t envy lawyers.. we engineers have the advantage of absolutes..

        5. avatar Truckman says:

          Even if the Constitution’s framers did mean for it to be changed with the times,which I can’t believe is the case,I’m positive they never could have foreseen the greed and outright INSANITY of those in modern times who would charge themselves with “re-interpreting” this document to better represent THEIR idea of what is best for America. I’m a MILLION times more comfortable with taking the Constitution at face value,and following its tenets to the letter. Knowing that the Authors of the Constitution DID consider what would likely be of concern in the future,the reason is obvious why they left some things described less specifically than others,and if they didn’t specify something,it was because what they’d written was sufficient as written,and needed no addition. Thus,the Second Amendment is perfectly sufficient as written. As was pointed out earlier,by their descriptions of weapons,they refer to guns equal to anything the Army would carry into battle,because THAT was the purpose they intended their probable use to be.

    3. avatar Parthenon says:

      Solution: teach responsibility.

      1. avatar Michael B says:

        You are not quite correct, Craig. The French developed something that was the ancestor of the Gatling gun during the time of our founders, there was a massive rifle with several barrels that could be propped up against the shoulder or a tree and fired, and various other crude weapons that were the day’s equivalent of assault weapons were available for purchase. All of these were just fine to own.

        Craig, there will always be criminals who break the law and people who push the envelope. Restricting the rest of us in an attempt to prevent them from comitting mayhem makes no sense and is unjust.

    4. avatar Silver says:

      “Licensing and training does not ultimately prohibit gun ownership…”

      Yes, it would, in the hands of corrupt politicians. Get just one agenda-driven guy in charge who tweaks the training “requirements” to be so prohibitively restrictive as to make it impossible to pass, and you have de facto ban. You can put your trust and life in the hands of your political overlords’ mercy, I choose not to.

      By the way, how do you define “common sense?” That’s always the million-dollar question because, funny thing, everyone defines it differently. But, then, that’s politics in a nutshell: the tyranny of those who enforce their own idea of common sense. Worked for plenty of the planet’s tyrants.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        how do you define “common sense?”

        Easy. If the left pronounces it, it’s common sense.

    5. avatar tdiinva says:

      If you want to take a narrow view of the Second Amendment then what it says is that only standard individual infantry weapons are protected. In 1792 that meant a standard smooth bore musket and a single shot pistol; today that means an M-16 or M-4 fully automatic rifle or carbine, the Beretta M-9, the Remington SPS 700 tactical and Barrett 50 cal. These are primary weapons types used by US infantry units.

  8. avatar nonnamous says:

    Right or left, its all about control these days, in one way or another. Sad.

    1. avatar Michael B says:

      They are obsessed with controlling every part of your lives. I’m starting to think Mather Byles was on to something when he said:

      “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?”

      1. avatar nonnamous says:

        “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
        ― Robert A. Heinlein

  9. avatar Ron says:

    “…………, who decides when Americans are “ready” to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms without government interference?”

    The Founding Fathers.
    December 15,1791

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    We’re not responsible enough to make our own choices

    What you mean “we,” Kimosabe?

    1. avatar John D says:

      Well, except for us, Ralph!

      1. avatar Sanchanim says:

        Hey me too! LOL

  11. avatar Michael B says:

    Glenn Beck has read the arguments and memorized the talking points necessary to regurgitate things that sound good to those who love freedom. He tell us what we want to hear in an entertaining format. But deep down he brings nothing new to the table. He’s like an actor or a comedian. We pay them for their ability to keep us amused and preoccupied. In his case it’s questionable whether he believes what he says or not. He’s good for one thing: helping spread some of the fredom message to the masses. But I don’t need him, don’t particularly care for him, and don’t like listening to him.

    YMMV, of course.

    Think for yourself.

  12. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    A person who assumes to have any say in how someone else legitimately and peacefully exercises their natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property is an authoritarian.

    To compromise Freedom is to become enslaved.

  13. avatar Silver says:

    Plenty here have echoed my thoughts already. I’ll just say that this is further proof that individuals must truly shrug off pre-conceived notions of political ideology and instead direct their ire toward the true enemies of this country: politicians in general and their mass media puppets.

    Never take any person by his word or his political boasting; pay attention for slips like this.

  14. avatar Steve says:

    I favor constitutional carry. Let’s be honest however. While I trust my neighbors and all of you to carry responsibly, there are plenty of places in this country where there is very little gun culture and huge swaths of the population have been rendered unable to exercise responsibility for themselves. We could argue over the causes; liberalism, the welfare state, the degenerate entertainment industry or all of the above but there is no doubt that the American culture of the rugged individualist and personal responsibility has been terribly eroded over the last fifty years or so. Ask yourself, could the cast of Jersey Shore be trusted with Constitutional Carry?
    I am not willing to give up my civil rights because some lunatic or idiot abused his but Glenn Beck has definitely put his finger on a problem and how to reverse it is definitely something worth thinking about.

    1. avatar nonnamous says:

      “could the cast of Jersey Shore be trusted with Constitutional Carry?”

      Well, they have the right to it, so who are you or I to deny them that?

      1. avatar Steve says:

        Re-read my post. I favor constitutional carry. Do I think that the cast of Jersey Shore are capable of exercising that right responsibly? Not now, not ever. So the question is; how do we re-establish a culture of personal responsibility in this country?
        I think that the answer is a return to first principles; the declaration of independence and the constitution, but what do we do in the meantime? Maybe we just give Snookie a Glock and wait until she takes herself out of the gene pool.

        1. avatar Blake says:

          Steve, well said.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Maybe we just give Snookie a Glock and wait until she takes herself out of the gene pool.

          I would actually favor that solution.

        3. avatar Sanchanim says:

          +1

        4. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          Make it so.

  15. avatar Makattak says:

    I think the second amendment strongly implies that restricting even the carry of arms is outside the purview of the totality of our government (federal, state, and local).

    I’m willing to accept in my reading that the government may be able to dictate how arms may be carried, whether openly or concealed. They cannot restrict the arms such that they are useless (must be carried unloaded, etc..) nor can they prevent their carry at all: at least one option (open or concealed) must be available to the citizens. (I’d prefer no restrictions, but I’m willing to accept that there may be this much leeway in the Constitution.)

    However, I’m also willing to accept, for now, the compromise of “shall issue” permits. I further think that if I were a successful media personality, I would likely not admit to any of my other positions beyond my acceptance of shall issue in order to avoid blowback that may delay the progress towards a more constitutional legal structure.

    That may explain his prancing around the issue. Strategy (and instant publicity of nearly everything said) means that prominent advocates may not be able to speak forthrightly about the issue.

    He may also believe that these restrictions are necessary now, but I wanted to point out that public pronouncements may not always be a pundit’s true views.

  16. avatar Eric says:

    I had this conversation with a friend who is active duty military and a pediatrician. He vehemently felt normal people would not be trusted with firearms. I accused him of elitism and things went downhill from there.

  17. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Why does it matter if someone acts “responsibly” or can “be trusted” before they’re “given permission” to have a firearm? How we FEEL about their ability or responsibility or trustworthiness does not diminish their natural, inherent rights. This is the same argument of the anti’s… they FEEL afraid, therefore we must disarm.

    The frequency or severity of a person’s irresponsible behavior does not determine an “allowable” level of rights!

    1. avatar Steve says:

      Please see my reply to nonnamous

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Your reply to nonnamous still presumes that your judgement (or someone’s judgement) of a person’s character or overall responsibility somehow dictates which INHERENT rights they are allowed to exercise. That position is Authoritarian.

        1. avatar Steve says:

          My reply presumes no such thing.

  18. avatar Lemming says:

    OTOH, are we so sure of majority that we need to vilify those who largely, but don’t entirely, agree?

  19. avatar Mike in NC says:

    Keep in mind that GB is a recent refugee from Bloomberg’s metropolitan utopia. Some of the brainwashing will take time to reverse. I also agree with Mike OFWG above that GB is likely projecting some issues relating to alcoholism.

  20. avatar Blake says:

    Whatever anyone thinks about Glenn Beck (most people have strong opinions one way or another) it’s a major coup to sit down with someone like Beck.

    Great job.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      I agree.

  21. avatar McConahy says:

    I didn’t know he could talk without writing on a chalkboard and balling like a little whiny child. CNN is joke, yet Fox News is almost as bad. Liberals are sheep, conservatives who listen to these blowhards are becoming zombies. This country is forgetting to think for themselves, being force fed agendas and asking for seconds.

    1. avatar Jay says:

      If you come at this issue from a purist point of yes or no then you lose. Glenn is realistic. Guns in the hands of the masses of people was gradual and people unfortunately learned through many accidents. Many deadly. That type of learning curve is unacceptable in our media driven society. I know, I know you don’t care. You want what is the letter of the law. You will lose.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    In all fairness to Beck, the question was phrased in a way that required him to take-it-or-leave-it. He tried to do both and mousetrapped himself.

    Beck didn’t know what Constitutional Carry means, and I’m not sure that the explanation that he was given was correct. It’s clear that Beck didn’t know that children, felons, drunks and druggies cannot carry even in Con Carry states. He didn’t know that, even in Con Carry states, there are places where guns are not permitted. In other words, Con Carry is not the free for all that was described to him. If the limits of Con Carry were known to him, I’m guessing that he might have answered differently.

    Moreover, his main objection to Con Carry seemed to be the matter of training. Had he been asked “would you favor permitless, Constitutional Carry after NRA-style training,” I’m positive that his answer would have been more closely aligned with what some of us would like to hear.

  23. avatar DoctorHog says:

    There is, I believe, a misguided view held by many in this fair land of ours including, apparently, Mr. Beck, that essentially holds that ‘relaxing’ gun laws from whatever starting point they are now in a particular state, or even nationwide, to some point of less control will result in a new group of criminals, irresponsible individuals and fools getting their hands on weapons. Here is the problem with that view – the criminals, irresponsible ones and fools largely already have their guns if they want them. The circumspect, responsible, law abiding citizen either has decided, or can decide in the future, where they stand on the issue of gun ownership and use. Removing prohibitions on guns and gun ownership and mode of carry where they do exist would not dramatically change who does and does not have a gun.

    If you are responsible, law abiding adult, you already may own and carry a gun in most of this country. If you choose not to exercise this right, reduced regulations on guns probably won’t make you change your mind.
    (apologies to those in Illinois and those other sad places where they cannot exercise their right – recent history indicates that help is on the way.)

    If you are a responsible, law abiding adult and you already own and/or carry a gun, a loosening of gun laws may change WHAT you own or HOW you carry but it probably won’t change THAT you own/carry.

    If you ARE a prohibited person then you either are a criminal who hasn’t or won’t obey the law anyway or you are not responsible enough for the rest of us to expect you to obey the law or you are not mentally competent to understand and obey the law. If you fall into one of these categories, then laws mean little to you and changing them won’t likely change your behavior. (I will note that if you are a child then you are deemed irresponsible in the eyes of the law and that is why you have a guardian. You may not in fact be irresponsible and you’ll get to prove that when you are of age.)

    So who is affected by gun control? Only the law abiding, responsible adult who wants to own and/or carry a gun but is prohibited to. Why is this person a problem?

  24. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Ok I am playing catch up here on all the comments.
    We all feel very strongly about our rights, and I think we can safely say we would all like to see the ability for all of us to own and carry.
    That being said I think I understand Glenn’s point as well as Steve and others who have posted.
    Here is what I would like to see.
    1. Abolish the states and local governments rights to control, restrict, or otherwise dictate firearms.
    Why: Local governments act irrationally, and depending on the the makeup pass idiotic laws in an attempt to curb illegal activity. They are superseding 2A and essentially changing 2A without due process.
    Example: California gun laws. Nuff said!
    Good it does for us: If it is controlled at the federal level any laws would be passed based upon a consensus from across the United States. No one local government could then supersede 2A. It also makes the laws in all 50 states equal. Just go to any online gun retailer and look at their disclaimers. There are so many laws that FFL can barely keep up. It also means that gun friendly states can help push on those who are less gun friendly.
    2. Push for a ratified constitutional carry.
    Why: I agree that based on 2A it is our right as law abiding citizens in the US is being infringed upon right now at the local level. I am also a realist, and we will never be law free. Standing and screaming about getting rid of laws won’t work as the states and even cities are superseding 2A left right and center. It will be a slow process to unravel the mess of laws we have put up.
    I am stating this as ratified because I do believe in safety and training. I am willing to bet those of us on this forum who carry probably spend more time at the range than our local police. This is a good thing. But on top of just shooting, people need to understand situational awareness and how to deal with stress in a combat situation. I understand this means some form of regulation, i.e. permitting and a database like E-trace which exists now. I know this goes against purists, but like others have said, not everyone should have a gun, and lets be honest right now even if I wanted to carry, I live in CA so forget about it! At least this gives everyone an equal and fighting chance.
    Why this is good for us: It means you carry in all 50 states. The law is equal and it is a single source. It also means that states will be forced to look at things like self defense, and stand your ground laws to make them line up as well. The idea here is less laws. Less legislation, and ability for all of us to adhere to laws that makes sense! As far of those of you concerned about the ability to take a course and get a permit. If it is done at the federal level states who’s residents make less than say CA, would have a say. Courses would be given by the NRA which are in place right now. Processing fees would remain just as they are now, so no it wouldn’t cost $10,000 to get a permit. That would not pass given that there are gun friendly states with a voice.
    Those are good first steps. It also makes us equal as citizens. Why should someone in Montana carry when I can’t? Why is an AR-15 legal in one state but not another? Why is a 15+1 magazine legal here but not there? If I have $15,000.00 and want a .50 BMG from Barret then why can’t I? Why is it the states can blatantly infringe on 2A and get away with it? Why is it most criminals buy their guns illegally, so any laws do no good at curbing gun violence anyway?

    Sincerely,
    One pissed off Californian!

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Historically, consolidating power into a large, centralized entity has never resulted in an increase of freedom and liberty.

      1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Historically, consolidating power into a large, centralized entity has never resulted in an increase in freedom and liberty.

        But removing it from small ones has.. The key point is to remove it entirely from the purview of government large AND small, as to prevent local ninny busybodies from infringing (which at the end of the day is as bad or worse than the fed’rulz since there’s more local ninnies and they’re closer to you)..

        That said, I’m still torn, I still think adequate safety and accuracy training, as well as some relevant legal instruction, is a good idea and can understand why it should be mandatory. Perhaps a ‘temporary’ CHL (say 1 year from date of purchase) at the point of sale while you’re in the process of getting the training and quals, and having the paperwork go thru the system.

        OTOH if the statistics from the unrestricted concealed states don’t show any elevated stats of poor judgement or unsafe handling, it could be a moot point. Still, I’m glad I took the training that I did, and I actually enjoyed my CHL course. Plus, it was 3-4mi from Lockhart so, BBQ for dinner..

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          “key point is to remove it entirely from the purview of government large AND small”

          I absolutely concur with that statment! My natural, inherent rights are not subject to any other person’s claim of “authority.”

        2. avatar Sanchanim says:

          So that would be the next logical step, which I agree.
          I can stand at the capital in Sacramento CA and yell all I want but local government won’t care, or if they repeal things at the state then local cities and counties will step in which is even worse.
          Like I said the first step is to align the rules. Putting it under Federal discharge is like consolidating class action law suites. It means we now go to one place with issues. Right now we would have to go to every city, and state government body, which is impossible. So it is a first step to an ultimate goal.
          Like many we are torn about how to implement or regulate training. I think there will need to be a level of compromise given, but one if it ensures safe carry we could live with. The last thing you want to have happen is a bunch of people acting badly to allow government to point the finger.

  25. avatar Hawke says:

    In the time that the 2A was written, there was not a need for training. In that time you were brought up knowing how to be responsible with your firearms. That was a means to put food on your table and protect your home for all sorts of things, people and beast. With that said, should training be required? I don’t know.
    Prior to my 15 years in the army, I didn’t have a need to have a weapon. So I had to be taught how to be responsible with the weapons I was issued. My wife of 13 years just recently started going to the range with me, yes I have to remind her of the four rules quite regularly.
    Is training necessary to responsibly use and carry a firearm? Yes I think training is necessary. But don’t take the choice out of my hands by changing my rights.

  26. avatar Don says:

    I call faking, faking, money-making.

    -D

  27. avatar Ross says:

    Glenn, may have a point, some people are clearly not ready to carry on a permit let alone Constitutional Carry and I believe the question could have been better explained/asked

    I’m in the Constitutional Carry camp, I believe it is what the Constitution mandates, but have found there are many with permits or thinking about getting a permit that are not ready to except responsibility for it, most have never asked them selves honestly if they could ever take the life of their fellow man.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      if they could ever take the life of their fellow man.

      The question is poorly phrased. I wouldn’t take the life of my fellow man. However, the scumbag trying to kill me or mine is not my fellow anything.

      1. avatar Ross says:

        You do have a point, I was attempting to be polite.

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Yes I see your point. Calling the attacker a fellow human being although he might be acting less than human is valid. Although I see Ralf’s point too!

  28. avatar DaveL says:

    If we’re looking for a way to ensure gun owners will have appropriate training without encumbering the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding adults, might I humbly point out the existence of public schools? Start’em young. Train them all in the basics. Not only would you ensure that gun owners have some kind of basic firearms training, you would probably also eliminate a lot of the political noise from people who’ve never fired a gun.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      I could not agree more with this idea.
      Kids who learn early that guns are not toys will probably not be interested in playing with them later on.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Exactly. Younger kids (elementary school) could use BB guns and air guns, middle schoolers use .22’s, and high schoolers can practice with larger rifles (.308, 5.56) and pistols (9mm, .40).

        That’s tax money I’d be willing to spend on public education.

    2. avatar Ross says:

      I went to public school in New Zealand and at the age of 16 the Police officer assigned to the town the school was located in came to our class and asked who wanted to sit their firearms license. All the boys in my class (myself included) raised our hands, he picked out three of us, stated “your dads are dirtbags and you are going to turn out the same way so you will not be sitting your license, the rest of you come with me” 🙂 smart man that officer the three that he refused all ended up going to prison for a number of things.

      The license application included, a video on gun safety, an exam based on the video and NZ firearms Law (a small book much the same way the US drivers license works)

    3. avatar Silver says:

      Sadly, it’s the most logical and productive ideas that most sheep out there will find most offensive.

  29. avatar Ron says:

    In my opinion the most precious right we have in this great country is the right to vote.
    Anyone disagree?

    For now I’ll assume no one disagrees.

    What about this.

    Any law abiding citizen of voting age, regardless of residence, is qualified to purchase firearms.
    Responsible enough to vote. Responsible enough to purchase firearms.

    To carry you must take a basic firearms training class.
    To take the class you must provide ID.
    The course requirement consist of classroom ( laws, etc.) and range training.
    The range training is tailored to the physical ability of the student.
    (MY 84 year old mother and 30 year old son will have an equal chance to qualify.)
    Upon completion you are issued a certificate by the training institution.
    This certificate provides proof of your compliance with the training requirement.

    The above requirments are similar to obtaining a licence to drive.

    That is it.
    No finger printing.
    No background check.
    No photo ( you have that on your ID).
    No paperwork to any agency.
    Most important, no 2A tax paid to the government for the privilege of exercising your right to carry. ( I have stated before how this kills my soul.)

    The age requirement has been met.
    The training requirement has been met.
    The citizen has the right to protect him/herself anywhere he/she is in this great country. As guaranteed by the 2A. Everyone equally.

    Before anyone becomes concerned about the lack of a backgound check.
    1. Those who take the course will already have a gun.
    2. The right to carry does not equal the right to commit crimes.
    3. If you must have background checks and fingerprinting, they will be included in the training class.

    This I THINK I could live with.

  30. avatar APBTFan says:

    When our Founding Fathers came up with the Second Amendment they had just fought an all out war against an unjust government and I highly doubt they meant for the people to have anything less than what a government’s soldiers could field. The Federalist Papers and the many writings of our Fathers bear this out. I’m sure ratio of idiots with guns back then would be fairly commensurate with our current population.

    As far as the recent tidal wave of CCW holders is concerned I’d love to see the recent numbers for firearms training enrollment. From what I’ve read its been a booming business which kinda shoots the shit out of painting the majority of new CCW holders as untrained.

    Are there dumbasses with guns? Absolutely. But there are dumbasses in every facet of life. Some fly planes, some drive on our roads, some control air traffic, some have badges, some run our government etc, etc. I’ve worked as a commercial/industrial electrician for many years and have seen one killed and several good folks get mangled by dumbasses. My point? Dumbasses are a fact of life and the rest of us have to deal with it as best we can.

  31. avatar Tom says:

    Beck said. Later: “We’re not responsible enough to let someone make their own choices.”

    And the government is?

    Big Brother is watching you.

  32. avatar Tom says:

    If a politician doesn’t support the right to keep and bear arms, if he or she doesn’t “trust” citizens enough to exercise gun rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, the politician shouldn’t be trusted with power.

    My motto:
    If the government does not trust you, maybe you should not trust the government.

  33. avatar Bill says:

    I honestly think this is a States Rights issue as well

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      I tastefully disagree. Since we have 2A which is a constitutional right set at the federal level, then it supersedes any state or local authority. Look at legal pot in CA as an example. The state says it is legal yet the federal authorities raid legal pot grows all the time.
      Now should I walk down the street with a loaded pistol and claim constitutional carry when I am surrounded by SWAT? Probably not the smartest idea.
      To that end the states are locking out folks right to carry, or what type of guns they can own by subjugation through legislation. They put state or local laws before federal laws, and as such most folks don’t want to wind up in jail.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      Anything enumerated by the Bill of Rights supersedes State’s Rights. 10th Amendment.

      1. avatar Sanchanim says:

        And the Supreme court even re-affirmed this, but the states are thumbing their noses at it.. What does it take, all of us to march on state capitals with loaded open carry??

      2. avatar jkp says:

        @APBTFan: I don’t think the tenth amendment says what you think it says.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
          —–
          Emphasis mine. The 2nd specifically prohibits infringement on a right held by the people.

        2. avatar jkp says:

          At the time of its drafting, the second amendment, indeed all of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the *FEDERAL* government when drafted. The concern was not that the state government would infringe on the rights of their own citizens.

          Some parts of the Bill of Rights have subsequently have been applied to the several states by the Supreme Court via the FOURTEENTH amendment, which was passed after the pro-slavery insurrection was defeated.

          Remember that the Constitution is intended to define what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do.

          The Supreme Court did not clarify until recently that the second amendment actually applied to the several States as well.

          I recommend checking out Joseph Story’s COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as Akhil Reed Amar’s THE BILL OF RIGHTS, if you have an interest in the subject.

        3. avatar Mike Settles says:

          Each state, on entering the Union, accepted and ratified the federal constitution as the “law of the land” and above state law.
          Washington state’s constitution even says that “The US Constitution is the Law of the Land”.

  34. avatar liquidflorian says:

    You’re reading an awful lot into his opinion of a very specific aspect of the gun rights movement he knew nothing about before you brought it up. You should’ve asked Cam Edwards that question.

  35. avatar Jay Wolf says:

    Every single one of you missed the most important thing Glenn said. It was something we can all take action on right now.

    The jerkoff jagbag mall ninja wannabes at gun ranges and gun stores driving new folks away from guns.

    A goodly portion of that type of gun person mentality has been demonstrated above. Going on and on ripping into GB for something he had never heard of and was asked to comment on. He even stated time and time again he was no gun expert.

    Everyone of you missed the most salient thing he commented on. Instead you guys ripped on him about CC. Typical of the type of gas bag losers who drive new shooters away from our sport in droves.

    Keep up the good work guys since your mentality has directly affected Glenn and what was supposed to be a great family day at the range.

    Pathetic you can’t even see it.

    1. avatar jkp says:

      Well-said, Jay Wolf. I’m not a particular Beck fan, but this headline and the characterizations of his position were unfair, especially considering he’d apparently just heard of the concept and was (understandably, for he is a public figure,) reluctant to make a bold stand on something for some you tune interview.

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      I agree that ranges should not put off new shooters. I disagree that most do, or that most “old hands” (i.e. gas bag losers) are antagonistic to or dismissive of newbies. But I disagree that the government should tell us how, when, where and what arms we should be able to keep and bear. And that is the most important issue of all re: gun rights.

      1. avatar LiquidFlorian says:

        Not all old hand are gas bag looser, and not all gas bag loosers are old hands. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

      2. avatar Blake says:

        Robert, finally got around to listening to the entire interview and I must admit, Glenn gave some pretty good answers. Whether or not you agree with Glenn’s conclusions, he does make his case rather than just spouting off talking points.

      3. avatar Jay Wolf says:

        I have seen it time and time again. Listen to what Glenn, keeping in mind Glenn is a NOOB! Glenn already had the line down about the gas bags and was apologizing to his future son in law.

        I mean come on, Glenn barely knows the calibers of his new gun and yet has had enough experience with these gas bags to know about and apologize for them?

        Such an opportunity was missed. What if that RO was engaging and helped his son in law out instead of ridiculing him? Instead of driving them off that RO could have been the one to informed Glenn about CC carry and in a very relaxed open situation they could have discussed it at great length without the stress of cameras around. Glenn could have gone INTO the NRA show and speech with it on his mind and possible would have had a chance to talked about it.

        Instead he was driven away, yep a new gun guy driven away that’s what we need more of. Especially one who has the ears of more then a few folks OH and I can name gun ranges in 5 states where this is prevalent,

        We in the gun community really missed one this time. Dropped the ball and screwed the pouch.

        So next time your at the range and you see some noob instead of a 20 minute diatribe about CC how about asking them how they are doing and seeing if you can help them in anyway. Remember most people in these situations feel nervous about asking for help. Chatting them up and not being a jerk could open the door. Plus you may make new gun friend.

  36. avatar Gabba says:

    kinda like jefferson on slavery. against it when he has no more use of it.

    1. avatar LiquidFlorian says:

      Thats just plain wrong. If you’ve never heard his show or read his books you all would know he’s pro gun and pro civil rights. He knows nothing of constitutional carry, but some of the Armed Intelligentsia are carrying on like Beck is a member of the Brady Bunch. Robert should’ve chosen to educate Beck rather then prod him for a sound bite, but then he wouldn’t get to post an inflammatory headline about a polarizing talk show host. Almost like the gas bag losers that bother the inexperienced people at the range…

  37. avatar Sanchanim says:

    So really what needs to happen here is the following.
    A class action law suite against all fifty states.
    Request from SCOTUS to rule all state and local laws regarding gun control are now invalid unless it reaffirms or is in the spirit of 2A. This is based on 5A and 14A to provide equal rights among all citizens.
    By providing the clause of reaffirming or in spirit of 2A we will maintain those states who have constitutional carry, or relatively easy concealed carry laws as they do not inhibit 2A. To challenge each law for each state or city would take forever.
    It also forces our local government to get off their butts and put into law things that do not infringe on 2A. There is a Federal UWB in place and not sure about convicted felons owning guns but in the end this would wipe clean the slates of all cities and states with regard to the junk laws they have in place.

  38. avatar Tempatan says:

    I am not pro gun control but you guys are fucking stupid. You know Glen Beck is NOT pro gun control. By your stupid fucking logic every person including an infant should be able to carry a hand gun. Sure lets put a firearm in every inept unresponsible persons hand and see how many accidental discharges and shootings occur in the first year. You wanna give the gun grabbers fuel we should do this. Training come with the territory. That is the way it has been ever since the first weapon was used. Ever since the first fucking man the first time you picked up a weapon was to learn to use it responsibly. You guys a grasping at straws. fucking pathetic. No better then the far left asholes trying to take the guns.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email