human rights are ultimately, at their core, simply rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill.
@xmike8259x are you kidding? he says its our right to carry guns because his imaginary friend told him so. Is there nothing wrond with that? Now what if his imaginary friend told him to to go on a killing spree with that gun? is it still his right to do so?
@hotdog2220 no im not kidding you but if you want to be just a douche bag when i never started i just said what did he say wrong...which still you cant tell me any thing wrong you just insulting and still not answering you will just say well beck is crazy....how and why is he crazy...hes a recovered alcoholic so that one wont work....ummm he fat....well so are alot of people and hes crazy why? he believes in God...hes crazy why?? becauce you dont believe in some thing any one who does is crazy??
@xmike8259x Buddy read what i wrote. i didn't say he is crazy. I answered your question. why is he wrong? Because in no holy book did god say carry a weapon around. Infact holy books are not even written by god. so when he says god gives him the right to carry a gun, it is an implication that either god personally told him that or he is wrong. You decide. Because god surely didn't tell me anything about carrying a weapon.
@NinjaRider777R Guns = a republican way of becoming criminals without getting into any trouble what so ever. this country is a joke, cant wait to get out.
@SamisMarvin So every gun owner is supposedly a criminal in your eyes just because they chose to defend themselves instead of relying on police forces that have become overly abusive criminals themselves, and have publicly admitted they can't protect people???
The cops of this country are too busy running Unconstitutional "checkpoints", shutting down children's Lemonade stands, and arresting people just for filming them to solve any real crimes.
@NinjaRider777R You're talking out of your ass. Nice comparison. Vermont had a population of roughly 629,000 versus California's roughly 37 million. Furthermore, it's not hard to get a gun in California. You have absolutely no clue. All you do is go to a gun show or your local Target pick a gun wait for a back ground check and that's it. Vermont also doesn't have the impoverished regions that California does. This is how morons like you rationalize shit and it's completely fucking ridiculous.
@wentafew Handguns have massive waiting periods in Kalifornia, and concealed carry is almost a myth. The only way to get a CCW permit in CA is to give a "generous donation" to the local politicians.
The harder you make it for people to protect themselves EVERYWHERE, the easier you make the criminal's jobs.
And the claim that any other state doesn't have slums is just moronic, they exist everywhere.
@NinjaRider777R They don't have massive waiting periods. I know lots of people that have them and we are all in California. I like how you shift to another issue which is concealed weapons. That's a totally different issue than gun ownership.
Of course there are slums everywhere. Funny thing is Los Anegeles County's slums have a larger population than all of your example Vermont. Have you been to Oakland? Lol, your slum in Vermont is a bad neighborhood in CA.
@wentafew California has the second longest waiting period at 10 days, only Hawaii is longer with 14 days.
And the amount of CCW permits directly influences crime rates, because if someone can't protect themselves out in the open, it makes the criminal's "job" easier.
Any state that forces "donations" to the local LEO's and politicians before a CCW permit is issued is known to have far worse corruptions in those areas.
Every state with "shall issue" CCW permits has lower crime rates.
@NinjaRider777R OMG!??!?! 10 whole days. That's just craziness!!! What will you do without your new firearm for 10 whole days. If they get a real background check done in 10 days then that's F'n amazing. You can't get an appointment at the DMV in less than 10 days.
You have 0 numbers to prove your secondary claim, and your linking a huge and complex issue to a single piece of data. Having a gun hidden on you is not going to stop someone from shooting you. It's not a magic force field.
@NinjaRider777R You can be fully armed, but if the guy wanting to commit the crime, or in your words perform his "job," he will have the upper hand and shoot you first before you know what's going on. You could make the argument that a criminal knowing everyone is probably armed will shoot even quicker insuring he gets the upper hand.
Check out today's news, "A gunman with a rifle opened fire at an IHOP restaurant in Nevada's capital on Tuesday" Nevada is a lenient gun owning state.
@wentafew The uniformed NatGuard members were the target, and they're NOT allowed to carry either open or concealed while in uniform unless they're MP's.
And I wouldn't trust the Nevada cops if you paid me to, research the Vegas Costco shooting, video evidence mysteriously missing, perjury in court by the 911 caller, and less than THREE SECONDS between the cop first confronting the "suspect" and the death of the suspect from 7 shots, 5 in the back, 2 in the front, from 3 different cops.
I'm with Beck. All the rights in the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights that preserves the diginity of the individual for no other reason then being human. No rational person will argue that someone does not have the right to defend themselves against someone, (even an oppressive government) who will do them harm. Damn a piece of paper or any statist who will argue to disarm me.
@11jamesdb Most people are pro second amendment. Most liberals are too. Glenn Beck leads people in the wrong direction. IE. Guns are legal. God said so. (Its in the constitution, a document written by men who, for the most part, rejected god) or Islam is violent. Worship christ. (What???? Mainstream christians no longer go to church and the violence they cause has ended, muslims still go to mosque every holy day. Don't turn christians back into what they used to be!) All the while he is a mormon
@11jamesdb Really? Your rights are made up sir, and if you really believe rights are given from God.... then why do so many countries have different rights? Why did OUR CONSTITUTION have to be AMENDED over and over again if it was inspired by Gods "perfect" word? Guess he forgot about slavery.
Your rights only go as far as the Government allows you to have them, which is why we fight for a democracy and against the plutocracy we live in now, Japanese Americans knew their rights during WW2!
God just called me on the phone, He says hi to everybody, and He also said that I have the right to go and shoot this guy anytime of the day, but only in Oregon.
What he means is that the right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right. It's not granted by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights only protects the right to keep and bear arms. Also, arms can mean a weapon of any sort, knife, gun...
ok if people were strapped at columbine and tech all that would have happened was more people would have been shot. People who like the idea of people just constantly packing heat think that they are some kind of sharpshooter, well you arent and mix inexperience in dangerous situations with a gun means you will shoot the wrong person
Explain how more people would have been shot? Some one with a gun, would have stopped the shooter before he killed anymore people. Are you saying that all of the other people with guns would just start shooting around at anything that moved? I guess I am confused as to how more people would have been shot even though the shooter would have been stopped earlier.
@haloman720 "Someone with a gun would have stopped the shooter" bull they would have missed either because they panicked or just never use their gun and they probably would kill some other innocent person this isn't an action movie it's real life
@SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 I can understand they might miss the target because they are panicked, but anyone who would legally carry a gun on them, has to go through the major process of getting the license to carry the gun so they would have to know how to shoot the weapon. And you cant say they would have missed, sure they might have missed, but that is just bull that you can assume that they would miss and kill someone. Even if they did miss, it doesn't mean that they would end up killing someone.
@haloman720 it's not like that in most states for example in TN you can literally walk into a store and buy a guy by just proving you are an adult also you can't assume they would kill someone any more than you can assume they would stop the person who has the head start of already shooting if they actually know how to shoot. However, truth is they probably wont be a professional and that makes the "defender" as dangerous as the "attacker"
too many gun laws ensure that innocent people cant protect themselves. sure do away with fully autos i can see how they r dangerous in the wronge hands but to do away with guns would b devastating and harm many people who need guns to fend off preditors from their live stalk not to mention home protection who would win a bad guy wit a gun or a father protecting his family with a bat?
If it's under the Constitution & it is one of the benchmarch Amendments then what part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't anybody get? The reason he's stating it's a right is simply because it is. He makes the connection w/ "God" based on the fact that the Constitution wouldn't be possible w/o The Declaration of Independence & The Declaration of Independence listed rights & freedom as "inalienable" & given unto the People by God & not government.
@cdowell1976 it good to knkow there are other people out there who can understand normal thinking not clouded by hate for glenn beck because of some crap they heard from a media or other people who tell you to hate him if you actually watch he is just a man who loves his country and is watching it be pissed away by hateful or uninformed folks its sad I wouldnt target someone on MSNBC. I hold the politicians and uninformed voters responsible for alot of the problems in this country
How would it have helped Columbine and Virginia tech if all students and teachers were armed xactly? If anything the tragedy wouldve been worse because amateurs cannot differentiate between the bad guys and the innocents there would b chaos. ppl really do need 2 study their literature more carefully b4 makin such brazen statements
@westnblu Well, I think you know, it'd be common sense to learn how to use a gun, and train. Also what makes you think the bad guys were "experts" at shooting? they were no different then the amateurs but they were insane
@TheMatt4019 well thanx 4 the reply but i beg 2 differ. i agree with your point bout bad guys not bein any different from amateurs but your next point is valid and wot id like 2 know . wot r insane ppl doin carryin semi automatic rifles in the 1st place let alone sprayin the bullets on innocents?
@westnblu because their insane. the only thing running through their mind is terror, like something else is controlling their actions towards the innocent people. and they just didn't go down to their local gun store and stock up, they probably gained them using illegal measures, like the black market for example.
@TheMatt4019 well glen beck makes the point early on sayin u have a right 2 own a gun provided u a sane and responsible citizen.i dont think in the case of virginia tech and columbine these clowns got their weapons from the black market.In some states its easier gettin a gun than a drivers licence and both can do damage in the wrong hands!!
@westnblu well id say the people in the immediate area would know for sure and wtf does studying their literature have to do w differentiating friend or foe??
@jdhinds1234 well i appreciate the reply by 'studyin the listerature' im suggestin readin on wot experts say in situations like columbine and virginia tech and in the unfortunate situation of bein in the vicinity of such tragedies. Youd b surprised how difficult it is 4 the average person 2 adequately respond and assess wots goin on particularly when panic and chaos ensues.
@thatsmyrail its to defend yourself from crazy people and from the government like the Constitution says. When law abiding citizens have guns crime goes down, its a proven fact.
@TheMethadoneParty Yeah I know. But what about passionate crimes etc. I don't think the gun topic is that easy to solve, there is no ultimate argument. It's also a proven fact that America has the highest homicide rates in the world. I don't really know what to think about it.
THen religion is an invalid argument to own a gun. Its as simple as that.
Its like saying at my house the chair is floating, and wheter you believe it or not, It is my chair given right to get a free vacation. Exactly thàt kind of fallacy.
"THen religion is an invalid argument to own a gun"
First, if religion is an invalid argument to own a gun under your belief, it's also an invalid argument to deny it, as well.
However, many people use religion as justification NOT to be armed, so there exists an avenue of debate on that end for those who are religiously minded, especially if they use such interpretation to deny others the choice.
But, there's also secular arguments in favor of gun ownership, such as the notion of individual freedom to choose for yourself based on your convictions and to assume the responsibilities and consequences of your choices.
In the end, it's not about religion or secularism, but about freedom.
Whether that freedom comes from god or from your existence in this world doesn't matter.
What matters is that others can't take your rights away from you nor can you take rights away from others.
"I say glenn beck is terrible wrong when he says gun ownership is a god given right."
The point was that you have inherent rights that nobody can really take away from you, such as a freedom to defend your life from someone intent on taking it from you.
Whether your life was given to you by a supreme creator or life was bestowed upon you by natural process is not the actual point.
Another straw man. It's not about god giving anyone a gun. It's about your right to decide whether or not you wish to own one and, with it, your choice to assume the responsibilities that goes along with that ownership should you decide to exercise it.
You are free to accept or deny the choice for yourself only. However, you cannot make the choice for anyone else whom you are not responsible for.
Sorry, but Jesus said this: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
Jesus said do not resist an evil person. He tells you to take the hit.
There are different ways to interpret that passage.
For example:
"There is a third school of thought in regard to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture."
"The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."
"Christianity is nothing more than weak self-righteousness."
Christianity, like any other religion, is only as righteous as the people practicing it.
But, as there are no two individuals completely alike, there are religious people that are actually cool as well as those who aren't too great with humanity.
However, the same holds true of those who don't believe as well; there will be those who choose not to believe who may be the greatest humanitarians and those who are the exact opposite.
"No. To use a belief as a argument thàts a logical fallacy."
So says the person who wasn't involved in the argument and saw fit to butt into something that wasn't any of his business with no intent to contribute to the argument but only to voice intolerance of those who have religious beliefs.
Did it ever occur to you that you could have left it well enough alone?
"How can Beck use gun massacres as arguments AGAINST gun control?"
Probably because:
1. Gun control only disarms those not inclined to commit homicide in malice (a.k.a. shooting sprees).
2. Criminals don't care about gun control except on how they render citizens defenseless.
3. If you are armed in a location where a shooting occurs, you at least have a means and a chance to effectively fight to save your own life if you can't escape.
I believe that he was referring to the ability to be a sane and responsibile citizen as coming from God- sane being a form of health, which comes from God.
'... And God said unto the Israelites: "Go now my children, go unto the world and use these blessed weapons to defend our holy covenant. Use your gun to reach the promised land, and do not let others dissuade you from using your Holy embodiments of my divine will."' - Book of Armaments, II, 14-15 :P
Now if the bible had actual passages like this, the church-going population might be just a little bit different.
Okay, put in a way that respects both religion and secularism:
No matter how or where it came from, your life is YOURS to cherish and DEFEND, including defending your life against aggression aimed towards depriving you of it.
If it involves having to kill your attacker to stop him from killing you, it's not really a contradiction as your attacker made his choice to violate your right to live and must assume the consequences of that choice, including DYING for it.
Sorry, but Jesus said this: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
And the only to way God is through Jesus. Your life is NOT your own according to Jesus. You only live because of God. Jesus never condoned violence period. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and advocates gun ownership is a devil worshiper.
Quoting scripture is a very poor way to win an argument considering that there exist MANY passages that can say whatever you want all subject to human interpretation. (To err is human.)
For example: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
"Anyone who claims to be a Christian and advocates gun ownership is a devil worshiper."
Presumptuous, perhaps even arrogant.
The problem with associating weapons with evil is that it ignores the fact that a weapon is only an object subject to the whims of its user, whether it be for good or ill.
In other words, it's very easy to condemn a weapon rather than pay attention to and, perhaps, even confront the evil that may reside within the heart and mind of every individual.
Right, but since Jesus did not condone violence and in fact preached against it, weapons must be admonished. And since anyone who picks up a weapon is working against Christ, the weapon bearer must further be rebuked.
"Right, but since Jesus did not condone violence and in fact preached against it, weapons must be admonished."
The CONTEXT is violence IN MALICE. Acting in justified defense of life and limb isn't evil and shows that you cherish your gift of life and are willing to DEFEND IT if absolutely necessary.
A refusal to defend your gift of life from unjust malice when you've opportunity to do so is holding that gift in contempt and could be principally equivalent to SUICIDE, which is a SIN.
The reason for the "after sunlight" provision is because it's assumed that you could better ascertain an intruder's intent when you can see him in the day as opposed to night.
Funny, it was referring to Peter when you read further, it is mentioned..."'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
So Jesus didn't mention attacking anyone or fighting back. Just mentions how Peter will be counted among the transgressors. What is a transgressor? Someone who breaks a law, rule or convention. Sorry....does not help you.
"Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that 'to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.'"
Sorry but that is not an argument from God. Glenn Beck's argument is made from a theological point. There are philosophers who say X, Y, and Z. So what?
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him. "
Luke 22
Sorry, Jesus again resists fighting. What is not ironic is that anyone who follows Christ would advocate fighting. They are not following Christ, but following sin.
Glad you agree, Jesus did not want violence. The act itself was a sin because it works against Christ's teaching: turn the other cheek. There is no avoiding the central point: Jesus did not want people to fight back.
Except you did not bother to understand WHY at that moment.
"The act itself was a sin because it works against Christ's teaching: turn the other cheek."
Not necessarily. Jesus was prophesied to die at the cross. To act against that prophecy was to doubt the prophecy, which would be doubting the word of God.
When Peter struck the high priest's servant, he was acting against the prophecy, which was acting against the word of God. It wasn't necessarily the act of violence that was sinful but its reason why it occurred; it was a sign that Peter doubted the prophecy of Christ's crucifixion, which also meant that he did not completely believe in his RESURRECTION.
Not true at all. To act in violence is to not act in line with the prophecy. Thus the instinct to act in violence is contrary to Jesus position and role. If Peter has not resorted to violence, he would not be contradicting Christ. Jesus edict holds still and can not be refuted: resist violence by taking attacks from the wicked.
Personally, I think gun ownership is a sign of weakness. You're scared of losing your "power" so you try and back it up with symbols of power like guns. True strong men were people who knew that your beliefs, and in it your power, could never be stripped from you.
So are conservative's big guns compensating for something a little smaller...
"Thus he proclaimed, CAP THEM BITCHES!!!" Carrying guns is a god given right, that is fucking stupid.
"Then he bestowed on the jewish slaves 10 M9 handguns and said, go fuck those Egyptians up!!!" Look at what I just wrote, how the fuck did we get guns then?
Did your so called GOD cause a series of random occurences in China that led to the discovery of gunpowder, that is fucking stupid!!!
You realise that to anyone with a rational veiw of things that statement was just playing stupid. The debate about concealed weapons is at least a legitement political issue but god wants you to have guns? REALLY!? Honestly I think they should keep consealed weapons out of schools and make it so mentaly unstable students can't just go to a gun show and buy them
We need our guns to protect our families from liberal wolves, They are a simple kind, prey in numbers on one, that is why they "win" on some arguments, but on big debates witch equal numbers the superior conservative intelect outwits the simple liberal mindset. Lets use our guns on simple self destructive liberals.
how about this...., only my belief in God keeps me from using my God-given right to hunt you down and preemptively take your life so you will never see my guns pried from my cold dead hands!
The second amendment exists, doesn't matter whence it came, it is meant as the peoples' means to shed the shackles of tyranny. Funny thing is, liberals want to take those rights away, and have many arguments as to why, but the endgame is to disarm the populace, what comes next is obvious.
@MrKli4d your completly right, to hunt a man down is sinister, especially if you have a gun and he has not. but, criminals who hunt people down get their guns by illigal means (either straight off the assembly line, organized crime, and other countries to name a few), and if i had to defend myself from a criminal i would rather have a gun than anything else.
i'm pretty sure that Glenn is referring to the amendments of the constitution when he spoke of owning guns as a right from God. Which are often referred to as God given rights
I don't mind people owning guns, but don't push it off as a "god given right". "God" didn't create guns, people did. Guns were created for one purpose, to kill. If someone wants to buy a gun and are able to legally, by all means, go buy one. However, don't put it into people's heads that they need to run out and buy one to protect themselves and their lives or personal belongings. That's just inciting fear and using scare tactics. Many people DONT own guns and they get along just fine.
Do NOT associate with those given to CHANGE! Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty! DO not be afraid of sudden terror, Nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes, For the Lord will be your confidence, And will keep your foot from being caught - Proverbs
The only people who follow laws are law abiding people. Criminals already don't follow the law. Criminals very, very rarely have legal weapons and any gun law would simply be ignored by them.
by that logic, we should just do away with ALL laws, including but not limited to: murder, speed limits, and theft. because the criminals are going to do it anyway, why even bother?
Americans need to protect themselves from violent , stupid , racist type of people call........Americans , so get more guns Americans and shoot.....more Americans ......that's probably what God intended as well ...right Mr. Beck ?
Yes, lets listen to the wise philosophy of a man who thought he was God in a time and place where everyone (in the middle east) thought that the earth was the center of the universe and affliction, illness and EARTHQUAKES! for cryin' out loud was a sign of God's wrath...One last thing, why does God decide that 'oh, this country can have these number of rights, but these countries can't.' Wake the funk up you zombie slaves! Not just the religious right but the overzealous liberals, too!
If a man does not provide (protection) for his family, he has abandoned the faith and is worse than an infidel. (1st Timothy 5:8) How can a man provide protection for his family if he does not own, receive training for, and know how to use a gun?
Did he just say every kid in school has a right to carry a gun in school? You insane? I somewhat agree in the right to own a self-defense weapon, but that is just ignorant to allow kids to have guns. Think how many people could instantly threaten another person. Even if the victimized did have a gun, the other person won't just let the other take it out. In addition, in many schools where gang affiliation may be a problem, you are only asking for even more trouble.
All you have to do is replay the video and you would know that he didn't reference "kids" idiot. No one has ever advocated letting minors carry guns anywhere you fool.
Only someone on drugs could twist the meaning of that passage. And let me remind you, jesus himself didn't write the bible anyway. The bible is just a book written by many authors waayyy after Jesus was dead.
"For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52)
So, if you want to take the word "sword" as a translation to "gun" from your Luke passage...then this passage in your world would mean if you own a gun then you die by a gun.
So, is Jesus saying that using the sword was a sin? If so, why didn't He confiscate the sword? Why would Jesus tell Peter to buy the sword, then tell him that it was a "sin" to use it?
You're assuming that the sword is literally a sword and not a metaphor for something else.
and the post about laws was to someone else. in regards to principle, i was saying that some people take the metaphor or meaning of a verse and apply it to something arbitrary that has nothing to do with the actual quote, thus taking it out of context.
and it doesn't look like my original comment posted. here it is again:
Ever heard of the phrase "cafeteria catholic". The same logic applies to nutjobs who take a random bible verse and quote it to justify their crazy agenda. Guns didn't exist during these times, so how can you quote something that doesn't exist.
It must be based on 'principle'...which the right wing loves to bring up all the time. I think you have a god given right to be delusional.
You are very right about people misquoting scripture to justify all kinds of bad things. I am not sure I understand your point in the rest of the post.
Great, we should definitely allow guns in schools. That way a suicidal/homicidal nut job who has no access to any form of firearm can easily snatch one from his or her fellow peers. I thought these schools employed on campus security/police? Excuse me, doesn't it make more since to have them have a more active roll in student protection? That's what they're getting paid for.
0:25 - 0:36. He disagrees with NOT allowing permits for guns on campus, thus advocating permits for guns on campus. This includes students and teachers.
"as long as you are a sane and responsible citizen" - he says hes against banning guns on college campuses. he implys that columbine or virginia tech wouldnt of happened if students and teachers had guns. and i said nothing about minors. if you are 18 or 21, depending on the state, you can legally own a gun. depending on the state there are different gun carry laws. some campuses allow guns to be carried. Theres no distinction between students and teachers. do you want specifics?
You truly believe that is common sense, don't you? Just like if gangsters carry guns they will have the ability to defend themselves...I know, I know, gangsters are different than students...but not all of them. So if no one had guns, then what? Oh, I know, you think the govt. would take over entirely...just look at Great Britain, right?
i would rather the woman being beat within an inch of her life turn on her back, pull a 38 out of her purse and blast the guy 6 times in th chest. i dont like repeat offenders, i like DEAD offenders because, they'll just get out and do it again!!!
human rights are ultimately, at their core, simply rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill.
chcikenpencil 1 month ago
all you glenn beck haters tell me one thing he said wrong
xmike8259x 7 months ago
@xmike8259x are you kidding? he says its our right to carry guns because his imaginary friend told him so. Is there nothing wrond with that? Now what if his imaginary friend told him to to go on a killing spree with that gun? is it still his right to do so?
hotdog2220 7 months ago
@hotdog2220 no im not kidding you but if you want to be just a douche bag when i never started i just said what did he say wrong...which still you cant tell me any thing wrong you just insulting and still not answering you will just say well beck is crazy....how and why is he crazy...hes a recovered alcoholic so that one wont work....ummm he fat....well so are alot of people and hes crazy why? he believes in God...hes crazy why?? becauce you dont believe in some thing any one who does is crazy??
xmike8259x 7 months ago
@xmike8259x Buddy read what i wrote. i didn't say he is crazy. I answered your question. why is he wrong? Because in no holy book did god say carry a weapon around. Infact holy books are not even written by god. so when he says god gives him the right to carry a gun, it is an implication that either god personally told him that or he is wrong. You decide. Because god surely didn't tell me anything about carrying a weapon.
hotdog2220 7 months ago
somehow i think guns and god are just two things that DON'T go together...
god (supposedly) equals peace.
guns equal war.
SamisMarvin 7 months ago
@SamisMarvin Guns = Peace Through Superior Firepower
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R Guns = a republican way of becoming criminals without getting into any trouble what so ever. this country is a joke, cant wait to get out.
SamisMarvin 6 months ago
@SamisMarvin So every gun owner is supposedly a criminal in your eyes just because they chose to defend themselves instead of relying on police forces that have become overly abusive criminals themselves, and have publicly admitted they can't protect people???
The cops of this country are too busy running Unconstitutional "checkpoints", shutting down children's Lemonade stands, and arresting people just for filming them to solve any real crimes.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@SamisMarvin Wow you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a Liberal, yet I love guns. Does that make me a Republican? No.
visini14 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R I think we should all carry around nuclear loaded brief cases. That will surely keep the peace.
wentafew 5 months ago
@wentafew More guns = less crime, Vermont figured this out and had ZERO firearm homicides in 2009.
Meanwhile California had almost 1400 firearm homicides in the same year and their gun purchase laws are ridiculous.
Every state with the most extreme gun control laws has the highest number of gun murders.
Conversely, every state with the least restrictive gun laws has the lowest number of gun murders.
NinjaRider777R 5 months ago
@NinjaRider777R You're talking out of your ass. Nice comparison. Vermont had a population of roughly 629,000 versus California's roughly 37 million. Furthermore, it's not hard to get a gun in California. You have absolutely no clue. All you do is go to a gun show or your local Target pick a gun wait for a back ground check and that's it. Vermont also doesn't have the impoverished regions that California does. This is how morons like you rationalize shit and it's completely fucking ridiculous.
wentafew 5 months ago
@wentafew Handguns have massive waiting periods in Kalifornia, and concealed carry is almost a myth. The only way to get a CCW permit in CA is to give a "generous donation" to the local politicians.
The harder you make it for people to protect themselves EVERYWHERE, the easier you make the criminal's jobs.
And the claim that any other state doesn't have slums is just moronic, they exist everywhere.
NinjaRider777R 5 months ago
@NinjaRider777R They don't have massive waiting periods. I know lots of people that have them and we are all in California. I like how you shift to another issue which is concealed weapons. That's a totally different issue than gun ownership.
Of course there are slums everywhere. Funny thing is Los Anegeles County's slums have a larger population than all of your example Vermont. Have you been to Oakland? Lol, your slum in Vermont is a bad neighborhood in CA.
wentafew 4 months ago
@wentafew California has the second longest waiting period at 10 days, only Hawaii is longer with 14 days.
And the amount of CCW permits directly influences crime rates, because if someone can't protect themselves out in the open, it makes the criminal's "job" easier.
Any state that forces "donations" to the local LEO's and politicians before a CCW permit is issued is known to have far worse corruptions in those areas.
Every state with "shall issue" CCW permits has lower crime rates.
NinjaRider777R 4 months ago
@NinjaRider777R OMG!??!?! 10 whole days. That's just craziness!!! What will you do without your new firearm for 10 whole days. If they get a real background check done in 10 days then that's F'n amazing. You can't get an appointment at the DMV in less than 10 days.
You have 0 numbers to prove your secondary claim, and your linking a huge and complex issue to a single piece of data. Having a gun hidden on you is not going to stop someone from shooting you. It's not a magic force field.
wentafew 4 months ago
@NinjaRider777R You can be fully armed, but if the guy wanting to commit the crime, or in your words perform his "job," he will have the upper hand and shoot you first before you know what's going on. You could make the argument that a criminal knowing everyone is probably armed will shoot even quicker insuring he gets the upper hand.
Check out today's news, "A gunman with a rifle opened fire at an IHOP restaurant in Nevada's capital on Tuesday" Nevada is a lenient gun owning state.
wentafew 4 months ago
@wentafew The uniformed NatGuard members were the target, and they're NOT allowed to carry either open or concealed while in uniform unless they're MP's.
And I wouldn't trust the Nevada cops if you paid me to, research the Vegas Costco shooting, video evidence mysteriously missing, perjury in court by the 911 caller, and less than THREE SECONDS between the cop first confronting the "suspect" and the death of the suspect from 7 shots, 5 in the back, 2 in the front, from 3 different cops.
NinjaRider777R 4 months ago
@NinjaRider777R You're just going to complain no matter what
wentafew 4 months ago
It's funny how whatever Glenn Beck wants to do is the exact same thing God wants to do.
DonJulioBlanco2002 7 months ago
I'm with Beck. All the rights in the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights that preserves the diginity of the individual for no other reason then being human. No rational person will argue that someone does not have the right to defend themselves against someone, (even an oppressive government) who will do them harm. Damn a piece of paper or any statist who will argue to disarm me.
11jamesdb 8 months ago
@11jamesdb Most people are pro second amendment. Most liberals are too. Glenn Beck leads people in the wrong direction. IE. Guns are legal. God said so. (Its in the constitution, a document written by men who, for the most part, rejected god) or Islam is violent. Worship christ. (What???? Mainstream christians no longer go to church and the violence they cause has ended, muslims still go to mosque every holy day. Don't turn christians back into what they used to be!) All the while he is a mormon
Pooternackle5 7 months ago
@11jamesdb Really? Your rights are made up sir, and if you really believe rights are given from God.... then why do so many countries have different rights? Why did OUR CONSTITUTION have to be AMENDED over and over again if it was inspired by Gods "perfect" word? Guess he forgot about slavery.
Your rights only go as far as the Government allows you to have them, which is why we fight for a democracy and against the plutocracy we live in now, Japanese Americans knew their rights during WW2!
Militarized 7 months ago
chaos
1000hightower 8 months ago
I am for guns but against students carrying them to school.have cops in the halls, if students had a gun there would be chows
1000hightower 8 months ago
God just called me on the phone, He says hi to everybody, and He also said that I have the right to go and shoot this guy anytime of the day, but only in Oregon.
caviper1 8 months ago
I am pro-gun, but Glenn Beck gives gun owners a bad name. He is crazy and makes the rest of us look like paranoid gun nuts.
And even though I'm atheist, he also manages to make Christians look bad. I mean come on, who honestly believes that Jesus would have packed heat?...
almaster666 8 months ago 2
@SAM871wkh
What he means is that the right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right. It's not granted by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights only protects the right to keep and bear arms. Also, arms can mean a weapon of any sort, knife, gun...
blamdude2121 9 months ago
ok if people were strapped at columbine and tech all that would have happened was more people would have been shot. People who like the idea of people just constantly packing heat think that they are some kind of sharpshooter, well you arent and mix inexperience in dangerous situations with a gun means you will shoot the wrong person
SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 10 months ago
@SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003
Explain how more people would have been shot? Some one with a gun, would have stopped the shooter before he killed anymore people. Are you saying that all of the other people with guns would just start shooting around at anything that moved? I guess I am confused as to how more people would have been shot even though the shooter would have been stopped earlier.
haloman720 10 months ago
@haloman720 "Someone with a gun would have stopped the shooter" bull they would have missed either because they panicked or just never use their gun and they probably would kill some other innocent person this isn't an action movie it's real life
SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 10 months ago
@SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 I can understand they might miss the target because they are panicked, but anyone who would legally carry a gun on them, has to go through the major process of getting the license to carry the gun so they would have to know how to shoot the weapon. And you cant say they would have missed, sure they might have missed, but that is just bull that you can assume that they would miss and kill someone. Even if they did miss, it doesn't mean that they would end up killing someone.
haloman720 10 months ago
@haloman720 it's not like that in most states for example in TN you can literally walk into a store and buy a guy by just proving you are an adult also you can't assume they would kill someone any more than you can assume they would stop the person who has the head start of already shooting if they actually know how to shoot. However, truth is they probably wont be a professional and that makes the "defender" as dangerous as the "attacker"
SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 10 months ago
Kids are insane these days. Gun Free Zones will protect you? Yeah, right!
ustfu 10 months ago
too many gun laws ensure that innocent people cant protect themselves. sure do away with fully autos i can see how they r dangerous in the wronge hands but to do away with guns would b devastating and harm many people who need guns to fend off preditors from their live stalk not to mention home protection who would win a bad guy wit a gun or a father protecting his family with a bat?
timmarquez50 1 year ago
l-o-l. yeah, what columbine needed was MORE GUNS. definitely.
xQueenKristinx 1 year ago
Sure helped in Arizona huh
tanzalone1 1 year ago
That's weird. I thought the right to own a gun was written in the Constitution not the Bible.
ahensley1000 1 year ago
If it's under the Constitution & it is one of the benchmarch Amendments then what part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't anybody get? The reason he's stating it's a right is simply because it is. He makes the connection w/ "God" based on the fact that the Constitution wouldn't be possible w/o The Declaration of Independence & The Declaration of Independence listed rights & freedom as "inalienable" & given unto the People by God & not government.
cdowell1976 1 year ago
@cdowell1976 it good to knkow there are other people out there who can understand normal thinking not clouded by hate for glenn beck because of some crap they heard from a media or other people who tell you to hate him if you actually watch he is just a man who loves his country and is watching it be pissed away by hateful or uninformed folks its sad I wouldnt target someone on MSNBC. I hold the politicians and uninformed voters responsible for alot of the problems in this country
justin200567890 10 months ago
How would it have helped Columbine and Virginia tech if all students and teachers were armed xactly? If anything the tragedy wouldve been worse because amateurs cannot differentiate between the bad guys and the innocents there would b chaos. ppl really do need 2 study their literature more carefully b4 makin such brazen statements
westnblu 1 year ago 2
@westnblu Well, I think you know, it'd be common sense to learn how to use a gun, and train. Also what makes you think the bad guys were "experts" at shooting? they were no different then the amateurs but they were insane
TheMatt4019 1 year ago
@TheMatt4019 well thanx 4 the reply but i beg 2 differ. i agree with your point bout bad guys not bein any different from amateurs but your next point is valid and wot id like 2 know . wot r insane ppl doin carryin semi automatic rifles in the 1st place let alone sprayin the bullets on innocents?
westnblu 1 year ago
@westnblu because their insane. the only thing running through their mind is terror, like something else is controlling their actions towards the innocent people. and they just didn't go down to their local gun store and stock up, they probably gained them using illegal measures, like the black market for example.
TheMatt4019 1 year ago
@TheMatt4019 well glen beck makes the point early on sayin u have a right 2 own a gun provided u a sane and responsible citizen.i dont think in the case of virginia tech and columbine these clowns got their weapons from the black market.In some states its easier gettin a gun than a drivers licence and both can do damage in the wrong hands!!
westnblu 1 year ago
@westnblu well id say the people in the immediate area would know for sure and wtf does studying their literature have to do w differentiating friend or foe??
jdhinds1234 1 year ago
@jdhinds1234 well i appreciate the reply by 'studyin the listerature' im suggestin readin on wot experts say in situations like columbine and virginia tech and in the unfortunate situation of bein in the vicinity of such tragedies. Youd b surprised how difficult it is 4 the average person 2 adequately respond and assess wots goin on particularly when panic and chaos ensues.
westnblu 1 year ago
Beck would make me laugh if it wasn`t sad that he is so stupid.
mountainmink 1 year ago
Right, Columbine and Virginia Tech were caused by too much gun control...............
user11235813213455 1 year ago
GLENN BECK FOR FREAKIN PRESIDENT
cabossejca 1 year ago
Uuh, why the fuck would you need a gun at school, unless you're a paranoid freak. He's such a fearmongering douche.
thatsmyrail 1 year ago
@thatsmyrail its to defend yourself from crazy people and from the government like the Constitution says. When law abiding citizens have guns crime goes down, its a proven fact.
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
@TheMethadoneParty Yeah I know. But what about passionate crimes etc. I don't think the gun topic is that easy to solve, there is no ultimate argument. It's also a proven fact that America has the highest homicide rates in the world. I don't really know what to think about it.
thatsmyrail 1 year ago
Exactly, it's a God given right.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Fallout3Follower ¿Que?
KashiwaDaisuke 1 year ago
Go Glenn Beck
GeneralBerger 1 year ago
When I first came across the heading for this video, I read it as "Glenn Beck : Right To Own A GUY Comes From God."
Knowing Beck, I thought he was going to show us God's advocation of slavery.
SatchmoSings 1 year ago
THen religion is an invalid argument to own a gun. Its as simple as that.
Its like saying at my house the chair is floating, and wheter you believe it or not, It is my chair given right to get a free vacation. Exactly thàt kind of fallacy.
0bsidianos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"THen religion is an invalid argument to own a gun"
First, if religion is an invalid argument to own a gun under your belief, it's also an invalid argument to deny it, as well.
However, many people use religion as justification NOT to be armed, so there exists an avenue of debate on that end for those who are religiously minded, especially if they use such interpretation to deny others the choice.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
But, there's also secular arguments in favor of gun ownership, such as the notion of individual freedom to choose for yourself based on your convictions and to assume the responsibilities and consequences of your choices.
In the end, it's not about religion or secularism, but about freedom.
Whether that freedom comes from god or from your existence in this world doesn't matter.
What matters is that others can't take your rights away from you nor can you take rights away from others.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Yes ofcourse there are.
I just wanted to point out that a religious argument for gun ownership is bullshit.
0bsidianos 1 year ago
Sure it is my business, it seems you feel spoken to... I aimed the video, not you.
I say glenn beck is terrible wrong when he says gun ownership is a god given right.
WTF is that kind of bullshit. Are people with cancer god given too?
God give nobody no gun? You see anyone getting a gun from god? You saw god? How do you know he exists?
0bsidianos 1 year ago
@0bsidianos
"I say glenn beck is terrible wrong when he says gun ownership is a god given right."
The point was that you have inherent rights that nobody can really take away from you, such as a freedom to defend your life from someone intent on taking it from you.
Whether your life was given to you by a supreme creator or life was bestowed upon you by natural process is not the actual point.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"Are people with cancer god given too?"
Straw man.
"You see anyone getting a gun from god?"
Another straw man. It's not about god giving anyone a gun. It's about your right to decide whether or not you wish to own one and, with it, your choice to assume the responsibilities that goes along with that ownership should you decide to exercise it.
You are free to accept or deny the choice for yourself only. However, you cannot make the choice for anyone else whom you are not responsible for.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"How do you know he exists?"
Is this an argument about rights or religion? Understand the context of the argument.
However, in regards to faith, whether or not it can be proven isn't important.
Try looking up the dictionary definition of "faith" as well as the phrase "leap of faith" to understand.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
Glenn beck is a fool stating that god gave you a right. lol He should have been born 700 years ago, he would be excellent crusader.
0bsidianos 1 year ago
Guns don't kill people, Mohammed & Jesus do
lotiq 1 year ago
Sorry, but Jesus said this: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
Jesus said do not resist an evil person. He tells you to take the hit.
douginamerica 1 year ago
There are different ways to interpret that passage.
For example:
"There is a third school of thought in regard to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture."
CONTINUED
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@douginamerica
And acting in self defense is not acting in vengeance; it's merely an act to STOP another from hurting you, nothing more.
If you exceed what's necessary to stop another from hurting you, then that would be morally repugnant.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Again Jesus is not stating a person should act in defense: Jesus is quite clear, take the hit and offer the other cheek.
douginamerica 1 year ago
@douginamerica
"Again Jesus is not stating a person should act in defense: Jesus is quite clear, take the hit and offer the other cheek"
Then we must agree to disagree.
It's your interpretation and I'm not in agreement with it.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Has nothing to do with interpretations, you simply ignore that statement.
Christianity is nothing more than weak self-righteousness.
0bsidianos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Has nothing to do with interpretations, you simply ignore that statement."
Perhaps.
"Christianity is nothing more than weak self-righteousness."
Meh. To me, Christianity, like any other religion, is only as righteous as the people practicing it.
There's a lot of religious people who aren't righteous, but the same is true of those who don't have any beliefs.
It's all how each individual is as a human being. Many use beliefs, or lack thereof, to make themselves seem more than what's true.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"Has nothing to do with interpretations, you simply ignore that statement."
Perhaps. Of course, your observation of the dialogue is your interpretation, based on what you can and can't ignore yourself.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"Christianity is nothing more than weak self-righteousness."
Christianity, like any other religion, is only as righteous as the people practicing it.
But, as there are no two individuals completely alike, there are religious people that are actually cool as well as those who aren't too great with humanity.
However, the same holds true of those who don't believe as well; there will be those who choose not to believe who may be the greatest humanitarians and those who are the exact opposite.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@0bsidianos
Sorry, but to argue against a belief is using it as a convenient, but specious explanation for the "inhumanity of humanity."
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
No. To use a belief as a argument thàts a logical fallacy.
0bsidianos 1 year ago
"No. To use a belief as a argument thàts a logical fallacy."
So says the person who wasn't involved in the argument and saw fit to butt into something that wasn't any of his business with no intent to contribute to the argument but only to voice intolerance of those who have religious beliefs.
Did it ever occur to you that you could have left it well enough alone?
Watcher3223 1 year ago
How can Beck use gun massacres as arguments AGAINST gun control?
vapata989 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vapata989
"How can Beck use gun massacres as arguments AGAINST gun control?"
Probably because:
1. Gun control only disarms those not inclined to commit homicide in malice (a.k.a. shooting sprees).
2. Criminals don't care about gun control except on how they render citizens defenseless.
3. If you are armed in a location where a shooting occurs, you at least have a means and a chance to effectively fight to save your own life if you can't escape.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
I believe that he was referring to the ability to be a sane and responsibile citizen as coming from God- sane being a form of health, which comes from God.
bubblemum 1 year ago
I've found the quote that Beck's referring to!
'... And God said unto the Israelites: "Go now my children, go unto the world and use these blessed weapons to defend our holy covenant. Use your gun to reach the promised land, and do not let others dissuade you from using your Holy embodiments of my divine will."' - Book of Armaments, II, 14-15 :P
Now if the bible had actual passages like this, the church-going population might be just a little bit different.
tornadomaximus 1 year ago
God never mentioned owning guns or taking up arms. What the hell is he talking about?
douginamerica 1 year ago
@douginamerica
Okay, put in a way that respects both religion and secularism:
No matter how or where it came from, your life is YOURS to cherish and DEFEND, including defending your life against aggression aimed towards depriving you of it.
If it involves having to kill your attacker to stop him from killing you, it's not really a contradiction as your attacker made his choice to violate your right to live and must assume the consequences of that choice, including DYING for it.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Sorry, but Jesus said this: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)
And the only to way God is through Jesus. Your life is NOT your own according to Jesus. You only live because of God. Jesus never condoned violence period. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and advocates gun ownership is a devil worshiper.
douginamerica 1 year ago
Quoting scripture is a very poor way to win an argument considering that there exist MANY passages that can say whatever you want all subject to human interpretation. (To err is human.)
For example: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@douginamerica
"Anyone who claims to be a Christian and advocates gun ownership is a devil worshiper."
Presumptuous, perhaps even arrogant.
The problem with associating weapons with evil is that it ignores the fact that a weapon is only an object subject to the whims of its user, whether it be for good or ill.
In other words, it's very easy to condemn a weapon rather than pay attention to and, perhaps, even confront the evil that may reside within the heart and mind of every individual.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Right, but since Jesus did not condone violence and in fact preached against it, weapons must be admonished. And since anyone who picks up a weapon is working against Christ, the weapon bearer must further be rebuked.
douginamerica 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Right, but since Jesus did not condone violence and in fact preached against it, weapons must be admonished."
The CONTEXT is violence IN MALICE. Acting in justified defense of life and limb isn't evil and shows that you cherish your gift of life and are willing to DEFEND IT if absolutely necessary.
A refusal to defend your gift of life from unjust malice when you've opportunity to do so is holding that gift in contempt and could be principally equivalent to SUICIDE, which is a SIN.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@douginamerica
"And since anyone who picks up a weapon is working against Christ, the weapon bearer must further be rebuked."
Very glib interpretation.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@douginamerica
Another scripture: Exodus 22:2-3
The reason for the "after sunlight" provision is because it's assumed that you could better ascertain an intruder's intent when you can see him in the day as opposed to night.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
But Jesus' words are superior to the Old Testament.
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
John 1:17
And since Jesus was God, his word is valued above all other prophets. Thus, the only word that counts is HIS.
douginamerica 1 year ago
"But Jesus' words are superior to the Old Testament."
Then I found it most ironic of Jesus to tell his disciples to arm themselves in Luke 22:36.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Funny, it was referring to Peter when you read further, it is mentioned..."'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
So Jesus didn't mention attacking anyone or fighting back. Just mentions how Peter will be counted among the transgressors. What is a transgressor? Someone who breaks a law, rule or convention. Sorry....does not help you.
douginamerica 1 year ago
"Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that 'to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.'"
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Sorry but that is not an argument from God. Glenn Beck's argument is made from a theological point. There are philosophers who say X, Y, and Z. So what?
Jesus was explicit in not fighting back.
douginamerica 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him. "
Luke 22
Sorry, Jesus again resists fighting. What is not ironic is that anyone who follows Christ would advocate fighting. They are not following Christ, but following sin.
douginamerica 1 year ago
@douginamerica
Except THE reason why Jesus did not want the violence in defense of him was that it was against what was prophesied.
Acting in defense of Christ in that moment was acting in DOUBT of God's prophecy. THAT was the sin, not necessarily the act itself but its REASON.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Glad you agree, Jesus did not want violence. The act itself was a sin because it works against Christ's teaching: turn the other cheek. There is no avoiding the central point: Jesus did not want people to fight back.
douginamerica 1 year ago
@douginamerica
"Glad you agree, Jesus did not want violence."
Except you did not bother to understand WHY at that moment.
"The act itself was a sin because it works against Christ's teaching: turn the other cheek."
Not necessarily. Jesus was prophesied to die at the cross. To act against that prophecy was to doubt the prophecy, which would be doubting the word of God.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Because .....again, a lack of faith in Jesus teaching: do no violence against the wicked.
douginamerica 1 year ago
When Peter struck the high priest's servant, he was acting against the prophecy, which was acting against the word of God. It wasn't necessarily the act of violence that was sinful but its reason why it occurred; it was a sign that Peter doubted the prophecy of Christ's crucifixion, which also meant that he did not completely believe in his RESURRECTION.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@douginamerica
The point of Peter's sin was not that he acted in violence, but he acted because his faith in the prophecy was lacking. THAT was the sin.
Supporting this contention is Matthew 16:21-27
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223
Not true at all. To act in violence is to not act in line with the prophecy. Thus the instinct to act in violence is contrary to Jesus position and role. If Peter has not resorted to violence, he would not be contradicting Christ. Jesus edict holds still and can not be refuted: resist violence by taking attacks from the wicked.
douginamerica 1 year ago
archery yes, some student pulls a gun , does the teacher have time to put a arrow though thier lung.
MCGETRICK2 1 year ago
God given right......lol! Prove that shit motherfucker, which god? When? How? stupid guns.
morningstomper123 1 year ago
WOW... Conservative fucknuts in America? Kill yourself? Weakness? You liberal gunbanners really are out there...
martystriano 1 year ago
Wow...
I am speechless...
Isn't he something?...he is the reason why I should kill myself to get away from all these conservative fuck nuts in America.
Voodoofreak35 1 year ago
Personally, I think gun ownership is a sign of weakness. You're scared of losing your "power" so you try and back it up with symbols of power like guns. True strong men were people who knew that your beliefs, and in it your power, could never be stripped from you.
MrKli4d 1 year ago
So are conservative's big guns compensating for something a little smaller...
"Thus he proclaimed, CAP THEM BITCHES!!!" Carrying guns is a god given right, that is fucking stupid.
"Then he bestowed on the jewish slaves 10 M9 handguns and said, go fuck those Egyptians up!!!" Look at what I just wrote, how the fuck did we get guns then?
Did your so called GOD cause a series of random occurences in China that led to the discovery of gunpowder, that is fucking stupid!!!
Toastyfire45 1 year ago
God represents Liberty.... Morons.
llevitron 1 year ago
You realise that to anyone with a rational veiw of things that statement was just playing stupid. The debate about concealed weapons is at least a legitement political issue but god wants you to have guns? REALLY!? Honestly I think they should keep consealed weapons out of schools and make it so mentaly unstable students can't just go to a gun show and buy them
samcooleho 1 year ago
@samcooleho well that really stopped the guys at columbine and virginia tech...
1androo2 1 year ago
We need our guns to protect our families from liberal wolves, They are a simple kind, prey in numbers on one, that is why they "win" on some arguments, but on big debates witch equal numbers the superior conservative intelect outwits the simple liberal mindset. Lets use our guns on simple self destructive liberals.
LiberalsCanGoToHell 1 year ago
how about this...., only my belief in God keeps me from using my God-given right to hunt you down and preemptively take your life so you will never see my guns pried from my cold dead hands!
The second amendment exists, doesn't matter whence it came, it is meant as the peoples' means to shed the shackles of tyranny. Funny thing is, liberals want to take those rights away, and have many arguments as to why, but the endgame is to disarm the populace, what comes next is obvious.
dirtyhutjugband 1 year ago
It's not your god-given right to hunt a man down. Reread your bible. You're the problem saying things like that.
MrKli4d 1 year ago
@MrKli4d your completly right, to hunt a man down is sinister, especially if you have a gun and he has not. but, criminals who hunt people down get their guns by illigal means (either straight off the assembly line, organized crime, and other countries to name a few), and if i had to defend myself from a criminal i would rather have a gun than anything else.
sherkbite3839 1 year ago
once again glenn beck proves hes a retard
KingofTheMafia 2 years ago
Hey acorn316 you suck GUNS ARE AWESOME
cwood4ever 2 years ago 2
i'm pretty sure that Glenn is referring to the amendments of the constitution when he spoke of owning guns as a right from God. Which are often referred to as God given rights
GeneralXander 2 years ago
I don't mind people owning guns, but don't push it off as a "god given right". "God" didn't create guns, people did. Guns were created for one purpose, to kill. If someone wants to buy a gun and are able to legally, by all means, go buy one. However, don't put it into people's heads that they need to run out and buy one to protect themselves and their lives or personal belongings. That's just inciting fear and using scare tactics. Many people DONT own guns and they get along just fine.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
agreed with that nicely put
SOGelite 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do NOT associate with those given to CHANGE! Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty! DO not be afraid of sudden terror, Nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes, For the Lord will be your confidence, And will keep your foot from being caught - Proverbs
FEAR NOT, PRAY FOR YOUR ENEMY - Jesus
Godisyoursolution 2 years ago
See NWO Solution
Godisyoursolution 2 years ago
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
SOGelite 2 years ago
The only people who follow laws are law abiding people. Criminals already don't follow the law. Criminals very, very rarely have legal weapons and any gun law would simply be ignored by them.
SOGelite 2 years ago
by that logic, we should just do away with ALL laws, including but not limited to: murder, speed limits, and theft. because the criminals are going to do it anyway, why even bother?
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
Americans need to protect themselves from violent , stupid , racist type of people call........Americans , so get more guns Americans and shoot.....more Americans ......that's probably what God intended as well ...right Mr. Beck ?
freeplus00 2 years ago
well, on fox news, the word american translates to white male :)
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
We shouldn't be changing the Constitution. This is going to be disastrous.
Boozikenz 2 years ago
Yes, lets listen to the wise philosophy of a man who thought he was God in a time and place where everyone (in the middle east) thought that the earth was the center of the universe and affliction, illness and EARTHQUAKES! for cryin' out loud was a sign of God's wrath...One last thing, why does God decide that 'oh, this country can have these number of rights, but these countries can't.' Wake the funk up you zombie slaves! Not just the religious right but the overzealous liberals, too!
buckj54 2 years ago
AMEN!!!!! Jesus commands his diciples to carry guns (Luke 22:36)
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
The right to own guns comes from god, what a fucking ignorant Beck is!
reisereise69 2 years ago
WTF ?/ ... "a fucking ignorant ... ..."? a fucking ignorant WHAT ? ...
Can't you even compose a gramatically correct sentence Einstein ?
God Bless Beck .. pass the ammunition
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
I think the word he was looking for was 'ignoramus' By the way, you spelled grammatically wrong, buddy. Oops!!
buckj54 2 years ago
If a man does not provide (protection) for his family, he has abandoned the faith and is worse than an infidel. (1st Timothy 5:8) How can a man provide protection for his family if he does not own, receive training for, and know how to use a gun?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Did he just say every kid in school has a right to carry a gun in school? You insane? I somewhat agree in the right to own a self-defense weapon, but that is just ignorant to allow kids to have guns. Think how many people could instantly threaten another person. Even if the victimized did have a gun, the other person won't just let the other take it out. In addition, in many schools where gang affiliation may be a problem, you are only asking for even more trouble.
xBiocide 2 years ago
All you have to do is replay the video and you would know that he didn't reference "kids" idiot. No one has ever advocated letting minors carry guns anywhere you fool.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Hmm, true, my apologies; however, I still wholly disagree with Mr. Beck, and the idea he proposes are ludicrous.
xBiocide 2 years ago
My apologies, too. I had no business using those names.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Mr. Beck, please define "sane and responsible citizen".
NoJeanNoMoney1 2 years ago
Yes. I love reading the Bible. It certainly says "Thou shoult posses guns, as my only son Jesus hath done".
Yup yup yup.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
If you would bother to actually read the Bible, you might run across Luke 22:36 where Jesus commands his diciples to buy weapons.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Only someone on drugs could twist the meaning of that passage. And let me remind you, jesus himself didn't write the bible anyway. The bible is just a book written by many authors waayyy after Jesus was dead.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
Ok, you tell me what it means.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
"For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52)
So, if you want to take the word "sword" as a translation to "gun" from your Luke passage...then this passage in your world would mean if you own a gun then you die by a gun.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
So, is Jesus saying that using the sword was a sin? If so, why didn't He confiscate the sword? Why would Jesus tell Peter to buy the sword, then tell him that it was a "sin" to use it?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
You're assuming that the sword is literally a sword and not a metaphor for something else.
and the post about laws was to someone else. in regards to principle, i was saying that some people take the metaphor or meaning of a verse and apply it to something arbitrary that has nothing to do with the actual quote, thus taking it out of context.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
The passage (v. 38) says that the diciples went and actually, literally got two swords. It was not a metaphor.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
and it doesn't look like my original comment posted. here it is again:
Ever heard of the phrase "cafeteria catholic". The same logic applies to nutjobs who take a random bible verse and quote it to justify their crazy agenda. Guns didn't exist during these times, so how can you quote something that doesn't exist.
It must be based on 'principle'...which the right wing loves to bring up all the time. I think you have a god given right to be delusional.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
You are very right about people misquoting scripture to justify all kinds of bad things. I am not sure I understand your point in the rest of the post.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
Teachers at big places should be able to have a gun. Just incase some nutcase comes in and starts hosing kids down.
HiCapacity 2 years ago 2
Great, we should definitely allow guns in schools. That way a suicidal/homicidal nut job who has no access to any form of firearm can easily snatch one from his or her fellow peers. I thought these schools employed on campus security/police? Excuse me, doesn't it make more since to have them have a more active roll in student protection? That's what they're getting paid for.
kizuhara 2 years ago
When, at any time during the video or anywhere else has anyone advocated letting STUDENTS carry guns?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
0:25 - 0:36. He disagrees with NOT allowing permits for guns on campus, thus advocating permits for guns on campus. This includes students and teachers.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
I don't have the patience to argue with a boob like you.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
You're right, because its hard to argue with the facts. You must watch Fox News.
paradoxenygma 2 years ago
Show me where anyone, in this or any other clip, has specifically argued that minors should be allowed to own and/or carry guns.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
"This includes students and teachers." How do you know this? Can you cite anybody advocating this?
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
"as long as you are a sane and responsible citizen" - he says hes against banning guns on college campuses. he implys that columbine or virginia tech wouldnt of happened if students and teachers had guns. and i said nothing about minors. if you are 18 or 21, depending on the state, you can legally own a gun. depending on the state there are different gun carry laws. some campuses allow guns to be carried. Theres no distinction between students and teachers. do you want specifics?
RosabellaMusic 2 years ago
are you the same person as Paradoxenygma and kizuhara? I assumed you were referring to high school students but maybe not. That's my bad.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
yes, this is 'paradoxenygma' my bad. i logged on under my bands youtube account
RosabellaMusic 2 years ago
My main point is that good people, trained and armed, in the general populace are our best and most realistic defense against rampage shootings.
leatherneck2044 2 years ago
So Beck is saying that students ARE safer with guns in the classroom? WOW!
zhongyang3 2 years ago
Common sense. If students carry guns, they will have the ability to defend themselves. We saw how well VT worked without guns in the classroom.
NickEMT 2 years ago
But the ready availability of firearms facilitated VT in the first place.
NoJeanNoMoney1 2 years ago
You truly believe that is common sense, don't you? Just like if gangsters carry guns they will have the ability to defend themselves...I know, I know, gangsters are different than students...but not all of them. So if no one had guns, then what? Oh, I know, you think the govt. would take over entirely...just look at Great Britain, right?
buckj54 2 years ago
shut up to stupid fuckin politic no one needs to here from you
yamahakillz 2 years ago
i would rather the woman being beat within an inch of her life turn on her back, pull a 38 out of her purse and blast the guy 6 times in th chest. i dont like repeat offenders, i like DEAD offenders because, they'll just get out and do it again!!!
lvkid87 2 years ago