Glenn Beck Has Gun Week - Page 2

sheepdog · May 13th, 2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

I've been a long time listener of Glenn Beck (started way back before he got into CNN) and I can tell you that he hasn't changed since joining CNN. If anything it's a step in the right direction for them.

That says it all. When Glenn was about to go on CNN, he agonized a lot (on the air) about it, being in "the enemy camp" and all, but ultimately decided it was a good way to expose CNN listeners to the truth.
I have listened to him for three or four years now, I think. His main video game problem is with Grand Theft Auto IV, I think. I, as a cop, pretty much have a problem with it, too. I also understand how some video games, with some people can cause desensitization to violence (see David Grossman's work) until some research can show me otherwise.
Moron Trivia IS the greatest game show of ALL time....

tabraha · May 13th, 2008, 08:06 AM

Agreed sheepdog. I've listened too him for a while as well and you pretty much have it pegged.

CopperKnight · May 13th, 2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldshellback

Having Louisiana's governer on last night, did he bring up the 'carry on campus' bill going through La.'s house?

Nope. No mention of that. It's a big enough movement, maybe later in the week.

njeske · May 13th, 2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdog

That says it all. When Glenn was about to go on CNN, he agonized a lot (on the air) about it, being in "the enemy camp" and all, but ultimately decided it was a good way to expose CNN listeners to the truth.
I have listened to him for three or four years now, I think. His main video game problem is with Grand Theft Auto IV, I think. I, as a cop, pretty much have a problem with it, too. I also understand how some video games, with some people can cause desensitization to violence (see David Grossman's work) until some research can show me otherwise.
Moron Trivia IS the greatest game show of ALL time....

How about a three-year study by professors at Harvard Medical? Their findings are detailed in a new book that's getting almost no media attention. Glenn even interviewed one of the authors on his CNN a couple weeks ago and didn't let her get a word in edgewise. In my opinion it was one of the worst interviews Glenn has ever conducted. Their findings basically show that most children can play violent games without issue, but like you said, some are at more to being desensitized than others. It all comes down to personal responsibility in my opinion. Which Glenn has always claimed to be an advocate for. It's an M rated game. It's not for kids, and (despite media reports) hasn't been marketed to kids. If parents buy it for their kids, that's their fault and they have to deal with the consequences.

grand theft childhood?

Sorry for getting off-topic. I won't post here about this again. I just wanted to get the link to sheepdog.

thecheat · May 13th, 2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdog

Moron Trivia IS the greatest game show of ALL time....

Hahahaha I forgot all about that, it runs during football season right? God I'm gonna have to join his premium crap or whatever so I can download his shows, I'm never around a radio when he's on.

CAJUN600 · May 16th, 2008, 06:59 PM

excellent commentary this week... here is what was in his latest email on John McCain and the 2A...

Special Report: Senator McCain on Guns

My support for the 2nd Amendment
By John McCain

Glenn Beck fans, gun rights are an important issue, and I wanted to share with you some highlights of the speech I will deliver today at the National Rifle Association annual meeting. I think they will give you some good insight into my strong belief in the Second Amendment.

"When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners. For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in "modern" America. The Second Amendment isn't some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers.

"Self-reliance is the ethic that made America great, and our Founders understood that. They knew there would be circumstances where Americans might need to use firearms to protect themselves and their families. Some Second Amendment detractors think this is a mere abstraction, or a relic of America's distant past. But Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights every day to protect themselves from criminals, as happened in Scottsdale, Arizona where earlier this year, a 74-year-old woman defended her home from a man who repeatedly attempted to break in, extort money and threatened to set fire to her garage. The Second Amendment - and its guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms - is certainly not an abstraction.

"But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners - and those who make and sell firearms - for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun activists demand yet another restriction on the Second Amendment. I opposed the ban on so-called 'assault weapons,' which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. It makes no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I have opposed waiting periods for gun purchases."

...

"Like your members, I am a committed conservationist. I have long supported multiple uses for public lands that ensure they are available for this and future generations to hunt, fish and explore. Over 12 million hunters in the United States contribute $25 billion to the economy, much of it in rural areas. Hunters pay billions of dollars in federal revenue through license and other fees. Here in Kentucky, hunters spend over $400 million and support thousands of jobs."

...

"Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. I supported campaign finance reform because I strongly believed our system of financing campaigns was influencing elected officials to put the interests of "soft money" donors ahead of the public interest. It is neither my purpose nor the purpose of the legislation to prevent gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process.

"Those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners from the political attitudes of the moment in Washington that view the Second Amendment as a once quaint custom that must now yield to the judgment of modern enlightened opinion. We have real differences with the Democratic candidates for President. They have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They claim to support hunters and gun owners. But just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they won't support gun control. Let's be clear. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected President, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk. They have both voted as Senators to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence.

"It seems every election, politicians who support restrictions on the Second Amendment dress up in camouflage and pose with guns to demonstrate they care about hunters, even though few gun owners fall for such obvious political theater. After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians 'cling to guns and religion' out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama's derision. 'She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment,' he said. 'Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, . . . packin' a six shooter!' Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns.

"Senator Obama hopes he can get away with having it both ways. He says he believes that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. But when he had a chance to weigh in on the most important Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, District of Columbia v. Heller, Senator Obama dodged the question by claiming, 'I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.' He refused to sign the amicus brief signed by a bipartisan group of 55 Senators arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the DC gun ban in the Heller case. When he was running for the State Senate in Illinois, his campaign filled out a questionnaire asking whether he supported legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns with simple, 'Yes.'

"The Heller case should be decided soon. But however that case is decided, the federal judiciary will continue to be an important forum for protecting Second Amendment rights. The next President will appoint literally hundreds of federal judges, and is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices."

...

"Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future. My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America - voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges - are entitled to know what those differences are."

...

"The decisions of our Supreme Court in particular can be as close to permanent as anything government does. And in the presidential selection of those who will write those decisions, a hunch, a hope, and a good first impression are not enough. I will not seek the confidence of the American people in my nominees until my own confidence is complete - until I am certain of my nominee's ability, wisdom, and demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution."

...

"But I would like to close my remarks with an issue that I know is much on the mind of Americans - the war in Iraq. Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you."

MaxLoad · May 16th, 2008, 09:34 PM

Thanks for that post Cajun. Sounds like the Senator is finally making his case. It's a shame he's not a conservative.
I'm anxious to read the entire speach at NRA.

sheepdog · May 17th, 2008, 10:27 AM

njeske, I don't think we are in disagreement on the GTAIV...we both say what the study (and to a lesser degree, Grossman) says..."MOST" and "SOME." I didn't hear Glenn's interview of which you spoke, but I can bet I imagine what he said. He is still a hoot, closer to advocating personal responsibility in the social context than any of the political commentators I hear.

slugger6 · May 17th, 2008, 10:48 AM

He is always entertaining no matter what the topic!

njeske · May 17th, 2008, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdog

njeske, I don't think we are in disagreement on the GTAIV...we both say what the study (and to a lesser degree, Grossman) says..."MOST" and "SOME." I didn't hear Glenn's interview of which you spoke, but I can bet I imagine what he said. He is still a hoot, closer to advocating personal responsibility in the social context than any of the political commentators I hear.

Agreed. I just got so frustrated with Glenn after than interview since the author of the study kept talking about parental responsibility in not buying the game for their kids and Glenn was just blowing her off. Oh well. No one's perfect. He's still the only conservative talk-show host that I agree with on just about everything.

May 13th, 2008, 08:06 AM	#12
tabraha Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: S.C. Posts: 164	Agreed sheepdog. I've listened too him for a while as well and you pretty much have it pegged. __________________ ______________________ Tad A.

May 16th, 2008, 06:59 PM	#16
CAJUN600 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: TN Posts: 229	excellent commentary this week... here is what was in his latest email on John McCain and the 2A... Special Report: Senator McCain on Guns My support for the 2nd Amendment By John McCain Glenn Beck fans, gun rights are an important issue, and I wanted to share with you some highlights of the speech I will deliver today at the National Rifle Association annual meeting. I think they will give you some good insight into my strong belief in the Second Amendment. "When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners. For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in "modern" America. The Second Amendment isn't some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers. "Self-reliance is the ethic that made America great, and our Founders understood that. They knew there would be circumstances where Americans might need to use firearms to protect themselves and their families. Some Second Amendment detractors think this is a mere abstraction, or a relic of America's distant past. But Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights every day to protect themselves from criminals, as happened in Scottsdale, Arizona where earlier this year, a 74-year-old woman defended her home from a man who repeatedly attempted to break in, extort money and threatened to set fire to her garage. The Second Amendment - and its guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms - is certainly not an abstraction. "But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners - and those who make and sell firearms - for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun activists demand yet another restriction on the Second Amendment. I opposed the ban on so-called 'assault weapons,' which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. It makes no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I have opposed waiting periods for gun purchases." ... "Like your members, I am a committed conservationist. I have long supported multiple uses for public lands that ensure they are available for this and future generations to hunt, fish and explore. Over 12 million hunters in the United States contribute $25 billion to the economy, much of it in rural areas. Hunters pay billions of dollars in federal revenue through license and other fees. Here in Kentucky, hunters spend over $400 million and support thousands of jobs." ... "Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. I supported campaign finance reform because I strongly believed our system of financing campaigns was influencing elected officials to put the interests of "soft money" donors ahead of the public interest. It is neither my purpose nor the purpose of the legislation to prevent gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process. "Those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners from the political attitudes of the moment in Washington that view the Second Amendment as a once quaint custom that must now yield to the judgment of modern enlightened opinion. We have real differences with the Democratic candidates for President. They have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They claim to support hunters and gun owners. But just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they won't support gun control. Let's be clear. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected President, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk. They have both voted as Senators to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence. "It seems every election, politicians who support restrictions on the Second Amendment dress up in camouflage and pose with guns to demonstrate they care about hunters, even though few gun owners fall for such obvious political theater. After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians 'cling to guns and religion' out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama's derision. 'She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment,' he said. 'Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, . . . packin' a six shooter!' Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns. "Senator Obama hopes he can get away with having it both ways. He says he believes that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. But when he had a chance to weigh in on the most important Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, District of Columbia v. Heller, Senator Obama dodged the question by claiming, 'I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.' He refused to sign the amicus brief signed by a bipartisan group of 55 Senators arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the DC gun ban in the Heller case. When he was running for the State Senate in Illinois, his campaign filled out a questionnaire asking whether he supported legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns with simple, 'Yes.' "The Heller case should be decided soon. But however that case is decided, the federal judiciary will continue to be an important forum for protecting Second Amendment rights. The next President will appoint literally hundreds of federal judges, and is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices." ... "Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future. My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America - voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges - are entitled to know what those differences are." ... "The decisions of our Supreme Court in particular can be as close to permanent as anything government does. And in the presidential selection of those who will write those decisions, a hunch, a hope, and a good first impression are not enough. I will not seek the confidence of the American people in my nominees until my own confidence is complete - until I am certain of my nominee's ability, wisdom, and demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution." ... "But I would like to close my remarks with an issue that I know is much on the mind of Americans - the war in Iraq. Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you." __________________ *If guns kill people, pens must cause misspelled words.*

May 17th, 2008, 10:27 AM	#18
sheepdog Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 448	njeske, I don't think we are in disagreement on the GTAIV...we both say what the study (and to a lesser degree, Grossman) says..."MOST" and "SOME." I didn't hear Glenn's interview of which you spoke, but I can bet I imagine what he said. He is still a hoot, closer to advocating personal responsibility in the social context than any of the political commentators I hear. __________________ What Would Gumby Do?

May 17th, 2008, 10:48 AM	#19
slugger6 Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 100	He is always entertaining no matter what the topic! __________________ "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 16th, 2008, 09:34 PM	#17
MaxLoad Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 157	Thanks for that post Cajun. Sounds like the Senator is finally making his case. It's a shame he's not a conservative. I'm anxious to read the entire speach at NRA.