All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
December 27, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
You know, I'm always here this time of the year.
I'm always here the Thursday and Friday between Christmas and New Year's.
First of all, Rush, like everybody else in America, is off this week.
So, guest hoster doing the program, Mark Stein was here.
I always do these two days.
Remember the blizzard a couple of years ago in New York?
I was here for that.
It was then.
This is when I'm here.
Well, time to do a show today.
And there's a lot to talk about, but we're not going to start with the fiscal cliff.
We're not going to start with the panicking.
We're not going to start with the Republicans are destroying America.
I'm going to start with a topic that I think deals with everything that this show is all about.
What liberals like to do, their tactic, which they're doing more so than ever, and they're emboldened because of the last election.
What they like to do is take an argument that they can't win and mock and ridicule it.
They can't knock down certain things that we conservatives believe in.
Because the slightest amount of explanation or thinking leads people around to our point of view.
So what they do is they instead say it's wacko.
It's dangerous.
It's obnoxiously stupid.
They do this over and over and over again.
They try to marginalize the argument and make it appear as though only a nut would believe it.
And they repeat this over and over and over again.
And what happens is that a lot of people who have the viewpoint, they hear that everybody thinks that that viewpoint is nutty, so they question their own beliefs.
Well, they don't talk much about that viewpoint because after all, you're a nut if you believe that.
I know that because that's what everybody on television says is what everybody says this is nutty.
The big accomplishment of conservative talk radio, and in particular Russia's program, is that it is told people that it is not only okay to have these points of view, but you are not alone.
A lot of people agree with you.
It's not nutty, it's not stupid, there's nothing wrong with you.
There's something wrong with them.
Don't let them try to marginalize you.
Rush talks a lot about ratification.
That he thinks that what he does is he ratifies the viewpoints of others who prior to his program coming along, back in 1989, I think I'm right about that.
There wasn't a real forum in which people had an opportunity to hear these points of view.
But, I want to talk about what's happened since the terrible massacre at the elementary school in Connecticut.
What you have had is a nonstop attempt by liberals to try to jam a viewpoint down the throats of America and ridiculing anybody who dares to stand up and say, wait a minute.
The treatment of Wayne Lapierre of the National Rifle Association has been outrageous.
First of all, this is a pretty big group.
There's millions of Americans in the NRA.
The idea that everybody who's in the NRA is a nut, or it's dangerous, who doesn't care about the safety of Americans.
That's offensive.
Try to get or try to get away with saying that about all of the members of a liberal group out there.
We're accused then of being engaging in hate speech.
What Lapierre did a few days ago was get up and say, I think we ought to have armed police officers or guards in every school in the United States.
Pounded, mocked, ridiculed, huh?
Can you believe how stupid this is?
He's supposed to get up and try to be reasonable about guns, and instead he's talking about arming every school in the United States.
The NRA is accused of being politically tone Deaf.
They're off message.
They're defiant.
Here these old angry white guys are, completely insensitive to what happened in Connecticut, and Lapierre is talking more ridiculous than ever.
So you just keep repeat that this is ridiculous.
Repeat it over and over and over again.
Repeat that what what Lapier said is outrageous.
Keep saying it.
That's their attempt to marginalize the point of view.
What they haven't ever done is come up with an argument as to why he's wrong.
I'm just a guy from Wisconsin.
When he says makes sense to me.
Why do we have armed guards around the president?
I'm asking an obvious question here.
Why do we have the Secret Service surrounding the president of the United States?
Because we have a vested interest in keeping him safe.
Well, if we believe that it's a good idea to have armed guards around the president of the United States to keep him safe, why is it so stupid to suggest that we try to protect children in schools?
Now I'm not saying that what Lapierre is suggesting is practical.
Maybe it's not.
Maybe we don't have the money to do it.
You know, especially in some of the smaller communities that have small budgets, could they devote so much of their resources that there'd be a police officer in every school or an armed security guard or trained personnel?
I don't know.
What I do know though is this.
I think having a responsible trained person in a school building to try to keep things safe is a good idea.
And it's certainly a better eye situation than not having anyone there.
I think that that's just common sense.
What's so ridiculous about what he said?
Every place that we have in our country that we care about keeping safe.
We put armed personnel.
Why do we give guns to police officers in the first place and why do we send them to the most dangerous parts of our country?
Every in central city in America, there's police officers crawling all over the place.
Why do we have them there?
We have them there to try to protect people and keep them safe.
You go to the airport, you've got to take off all your clothes, you gotta lay all your junk out, you gotta put your liquids through a scanner.
Why do we do this?
Because we've decided that it's important to keep that place safe.
School kids don't deserve the same consideration.
Now I know why they're ridiculing him.
What Lapierre said makes a lot more sense than passing eighty-seven more gun laws that won't do any good.
That's why they have to marginalize him.
Because he was presenting an alternative to passing a bunch of gun laws.
And if there's anything liberals want to do, it's pass gun laws.
See they love gun laws.
The reason they love gun laws is it becomes a substitute for thought.
It's a substitute for actually confronting what the problem is.
It becomes their way of pretty much putting up a shield to protect themselves from being proven wrong on just about everything.
They don't like to blame criminals.
They don't like to focus on repeat criminals.
They don't like to deal with the fact that some people are terrible people.
So instead they come up with this panacea gun laws, gun laws, gun laws.
I've never been a Puritan on the Second Amendment.
I believe in the Second Amendment it's there, it says it means what it says.
But if you could make a case that passing a whole series of gun laws that make our country safer, I'm pragmatic enough that I'd be willing to take a look at it.
There's no reason to believe any of it would work.
Well, these weapons should have been illegal.
Okay, let's suppose you banned the weapon that the guy, the kid in Connecticut had.
What good would that do?
Ban it right now.
Does it make any school shooting, any shooting in a mall, Any act of mass violence any less likely?
Any?
Of course it doesn't.
They're not talking about the guy who just burned a bunch of houses down and shot and killed his sister.
He used the Bushmaster, the same weapon that was used in Connecticut.
That guy was a felon.
It was illegal for him to have that gun.
There, we had passed a gun law that made illegal his possession of that weapon.
What good did that do?
It didn't do any good.
Liberals will talk about gun control and banning assault weapons and banning this and banning that and banning the other thing.
But that means that they don't have to talk about whether or not we've made a mistake in our country in making it so hard to institutionalize people who are mentally ill to the point that they are dangerous to themselves and others.
They talk about gun laws because that way we don't have to talk about the pathologies that exist in America that lead some people to constant violent crime.
They talk about gun laws because then we don't have to address the disproportionate amount of violent crime that occurs in minority communities.
They throw out guns as their shield to not have to talk about anything else on these issues.
Okay, fine, that's their tactic.
But what I object to is trying to marginalize and ridicule.
Anyone who doesn't buy it.
You're not a nut if you don't think gun laws are going to do any good.
You're not a nut if you think that it's a good idea to make our schools safer.
Here's the thing about this attempt to marginalize Lapierre.
In the few days since they held their news conference Friday and he went on the talk shows over the weekend.
Gradually he's getting some support.
The Attorney General of Arizona Tom Horn today talked about putting police officers in security in schools in Arizona.
Other parts of the United States people are now openly addressing this.
Some of the more affluent school districts in the United States in relatively safe communities where there isn't a lot of violent crime.
Gee, we have this police officer, he's otherwise just on patrol.
Maybe we ought to have him in the school a few hours a day.
Lapierre has teed up an idea that is worthwhile to consider.
It's not nutty.
It's obvious.
It's common sense.
And I think rather than be cowed into silence, the members of the NRA ought to stand up and say they support what their leader had to say.
And we ought to stand up and talk about what we need to do to make schools safer.
I don't know that having a cop in every school will mean that we'll never have anything bad happen again.
Guy comes in with some massive assault weapon, frankly, he could kill the police officer.
It's not a panacea.
But the reason we have police officers, the reason we have security guards is we put them in places where we think that there might be a danger.
Why do we have armed security guards in our country?
Why do we have a National Guard that's called out every time that there's civil disobedience in America?
We do it because we think it's a good idea to have responsible trained people around in places where somebody might do something bad.
I can make the case that protecting our schools with armed personnel is a lot more sensible and would have a lot more chance of working than banning this type of weapon or banning that type of weapon or banning the other thing.
Now they're talking, well, what harm would it do?
Let's just ban these guns.
The NRA believes that if we start down this path of banning this type of weapon and banning that type of weapon, eventually they're going to achieve their goal of banning virtually every weapon.
So therefore they've got this stand for they pretty much oppose most type most attempts to ban the legal possession of guns by honest law abiding citizens.
I think that's a reasonable point of view for them to take.
The trashing of the reputation of that organization and its millions of members, and the ridiculing of Wayne Lapierre and suggesting that he doesn't care about children, that he doesn't want to protect our kids, that he's perfectly fine with mass violence as a slander.
It's an attack on all of the people in that group, and it's an attack on all of the people who have that point of view.
I agree with Lapierre.
Oh, you're a nut too.
That's their response.
Just say that we're all nuts.
Rather than try to engage us, deal with the argument, deal with whether or not the positions we're taking are logical.
They don't want to do any of those things.
They can't win the argument, so they instead try to marginalize the people that are making it.
I want to tee this one up for the program here.
1-800-282-2882 is the phone number.
I think the notion of having better security in the schools is a good idea.
And I don't think passing a bunch of gun laws in response to what happened in Connecticut will do any good at all.
I think what's happening is people are taking advantage of this terrible tragedy to do what they've always wanted to do, which is ban a bunch of guns.
Rather than actually engage on the question of what we can do to deal with the fact that there does seem to be an increase in society of people who go out and decide that they want to commit mass murder.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm the guest host today for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You know what really fries me?
All these celebrities who make fun of the NRA.
Yet just about all of them have personal protection that would make most NRA members look shy.
You think they might have some armed guards down there at the Daily Show?
All those people are protected.
They've got people who provide security for them because they feel as though they need it.
Yet they ridicule the notion that somebody else might be able to have the same opportunity.
Let's go to Hoyt, Kansas and Orin Orin, your first up to day on the Rush Limbaugh program with me, Mark Belling.
Mr. Belling, thank you very much, and I want to thank Mr. Snerdley for uh returning my call.
Uh anyway, I'm a retired law enforcement administrator, and I've fought this all my career.
When uh there's a burglary to a home or business and guns are stolen, the cops show up, they file a little report C list, and it goes to the detectives, they move it from the inbox to the outbox to the file box,
and the point is that no investigation is done, there's no detectives called out, there's no crime scene, and the guns just disappear onto the street.
If we really want to stop this, uh gun violence by criminals who have stolen guns, then all we have to do is viciously and vociferously pursue gun theft.
It really is that simple.
Well, Orin, Orin, you're what you're doing here, Oren, you're committing the sin of being logical about this issue.
We have a lot of gun laws on the books, and you mentioned the obvious one, the theft of a gun.
The people who are calling for all of these gun laws are the ones who treat the gun laws that we have as annoyances.
You've got some cities that are doing stop and frisk where they'll try well to pull somebody over because they suspect that they may have an illegal gun or they're not allowed to have a gun.
The civil libertarians immediately scream racial profiling, they claim that this is a violation of people's rights when you do stuff like this.
When you've got a criminal who commits a crime using a gun, the first charge that ends up being plea bargained away is the gun charge, and they'll get them on some and on something else.
There's never an enhancer for the use of a weapon.
We've got all sorts of laws right now.
In most states, if you're a felon, if you're a felon, you can't possess a firearm.
We know that many of those felons that are still involved in crime possess those weapons.
We aren't doing anything to go and get them.
You mentioned the obvious thing.
I own a gun, somebody steals my gun.
Why not make a priority to go out and get that because presumably the person who would go and commit a crime to get my gun is doing it because he's up to no good.
We don't do any of that.
We just talk about passing a bunch of laws and then wishing the problem was going to go and wishing the problem was going to go away.
You know you rarely have a situation in which someone who is an honest law abiding citizen does something bad with a gun.
Now, true, the situation in Connecticut was an aberration.
The guy took his mother's weapon and he did something terrible with it.
But there isn't any gun law that I can think of that they would have could have passed that would have stopped him from doing that.
But I think you hit the key.
The people who scream the loudest about passing more gun laws are the ones who don't ever want to do anything with the gun laws that we do have, and I appreciate your calling and making that point, Orrin calling from Kansas.
Now, when people try to argue that, instead we're shut down with this notion that the NRA is against all laws, the NRA doesn't care, this is stupid, it's stupid, it's stupid.
If it's so stupid, why can't they engage on it?
And why aren't they willing to argue their point using logic rather than simply ridiculing the other side?
Mark Belling in for Rush.
Mark Belling's sitting in oops, oops, we have a we have a Johnny Donovan intro coming in or not.
I talked.
You forgot, and I I you know, and I started to talk myself.
I started to talk myself.
That that's usually the sign in fact the last time I did the show, either your replacement forgot to play, the uh Johnny Donovan thing, or I talked over the top of it.
One of us screwed up and I don't remember which one it is.
I'm the guest host.
My name is Mark Belling, one-eight hundred-two eight two two eight eight two is the phone number.
Let's suppose gun control worked.
And you could prove that America would be much safer if we passed a whole series of gun laws.
Well then we got a problem because the Constitution seems to prohibit that.
But most people who believe in the Second Amendment are okay with certain gun laws.
Most members of the NRA, for example, believe in enhanced penalties for people who commit a crime while using a gun.
Most people who are in the NRAOK with felons being prohibited from having guns.
Most people who are in the NRAOK with having restrictions on people who have clearly emotional problems having access to guns.
So it's not an absolute document, but let's suppose it did work.
Well, then we'd have a problem and we'd have to think about the fact the Second Amendment is out there.
My argument is that it never works.
John Lott, who's a social scientist and an economist who has written extensively about concealed carry laws, he makes a good point in USA Today, uh, let's see, this was yesterday.
Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the nineteen ninety-five gun free school zone act?
Have you noticed that?
Whenever there's a shooting at school, it's always a gun free school.
Let's go back to the phones, David calling from the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark, how are you?
I'm great.
Uh you always seem to want, or you're asking for an intelligent discussion from a liberal.
Well, I'm I'm here to talk to you about gun laws.
First of all, the president has never mentioned even the word gun laws in any of his uh words or actions over the last uh couple weeks with all the interest in it.
But the the link, the weak link, I think in the NRA and Le Pierre, all right, who I do think is a nut, is that he's all for uh claiming it on mental health and um uh video games, which really has nothing to do with it.
But the the weakest link he's got is that he wants to register that you let the people at the gun shows, which lets the mentally ill, which lets the people that shouldn't have guns that aren't allowed to own guns, such as the guy up in New York State buy guns without any kind of registration.
Do you think La Pierre's argument that we ought to have registration and a program of training and and education like with driving a car?
What's the difference between driving a car and owning a gun?
A gun is meant to kill people.
David, do you agree with LaPierre's argument that we ought to have more armed guards and police officers in schools?
Why would you ignore that?
Why would you let the NRA want that loophole in there?
No, you're talking about the issue of the ability to sell guns at private gun shows, which has nothing to do with the situation in Connecticut, the guy used his mother's guns.
I'm asking you about the argument that he made that what our focus ought to be is have more Security and have more qualified trained armed personnel in places like schools.
That was the thing that resulted in him being ridiculed.
Do you think his idea is a good one or a bad one?
Second time I've asked the question.
David?
David's gone.
Now that's the point.
He threw in the he threw it in the maybe his mobile phone dropped out.
Maybe.
Maybe.
I merely wanted to ask him whether or not he felt that the position of Lapierre with regard to getting more weapons in the hands of trained, qualified people there to protect us in places like public schools would help or not.
The answer is I think obvious, of course it would.
On the other issues that you throw out, I could argue forever that they wouldn't do any good.
Now you can come back and say would they do any harm if we put some restrictions on the private gun uh on the private gun sales, if we put restrictions on certain types of weapons like the Bushmaster, you can make that argument that it wouldn't harm anyone.
Well, what why does anyone need to have a weapon like that?
That argument is fine.
I thought though, in response to what happened in Connecticut, we were talking about or we were going to talk about something that might help.
Something that might work.
Instead, all it is is an excuse for people like the last caller to go and shove the agenda that they've been for forever and ever and ever.
Ban this type of gun, ban that type of gun.
They're parasites, they're feeding off of this tragedy to push through an agenda that they've always had rather than seriously talking about what we might do in our country to deal with the fact that we seem to have an increase in the number of people who want to go to places like a school or a church or some other public place and start killing people.
Let's go back to the phones.
Uh Tampa, Florida, and Michael.
Michael, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
I love it.
Thank you.
Um I was calling because I have not heard anybody reverse engineer the process that took place.
If you look at the end result, the suicide, and you look at the statistics of who commits suicide, and it is not crazed people.
It's not the mentally ill all the time.
It's most of the time somebody who's reasonably intelligent and can work things out.
What they what is common with all people that commit suicide or almost all statistically, is that they have an unresolvable problem.
And if you look at it and reverse engineered the situation, he had an unresolvable problem because of an outburst that he took out on the school.
And that was probably an outburst because he took something out on his mother.
And the gun is just a distraction.
The whole gun law thing, the whole issues there.
They're not getting back to what causes those events.
They don't want to talk about what causes the events because then they're talking about people.
They would much rather demonize the people who oppose gun laws than talk about the people that are actually doing terrible things.
You're right.
Most of these people who go out and commit mass mayhem, kill a bunch of people back in my own community of Milwaukee.
We had a terrible situation this past summer where a person went to a sick temple and shot a bunch of people.
We had we we had in my own community a s a salon, a spa in salon where some guy was having a problem in his marriage, went in and shot his wife and other people at the salon.
In both cases, they ended up killing themselves at the end of it.
They're selfish hedonistic people who have some problem.
They have this outburst, they want to kill a bunch of people, then they kill themselves.
You're right about that.
Rather than focus and understand why that happened, we instead want to go out and criticize everyone other than the people who actually do the terrible thing.
My point here is trying to figure out what, if anything, we can do about the fact that these people exist.
And I think since we live in an open society, it's going to be really hard to stop this stuff.
You know, if there's some guy who's bound and determined to do something terrible, since we live in an open world and we can't, you know, put metal detectors everywhere we have in society, they're gonna have a good chance of doing that.
What we have seen though is that some places seem to attract these people.
And school situations seem to be one of them.
You had Columbine, you had Virginia Tech, which is a university, and now we have the poor school in Connecticut.
If that's the case, if there are some places that are likelier than not to be targeted, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that we try to put a little bit more security There, but you are right.
The problem is whatever it is that's motivating people to do this type of thing, whether or not it's somebody engaging in gang violence or people like this who decide to slaughter a bunch of children, the problem is them, and no amount of laws that you pass dealing with the guns addresses that part of the problem.
Thank you, Michael.
To Fairfield, California and Mike.
Mike, it's your turn on EIB with Mark Belling.
Good morning, Mike.
Kevin, thank you for taking my card.
Mark.
Mark.
Um this business uh of the liberal agenda, the gun control has always been uh one of their crown jewels.
Um and they always uh go at this with an emotional rather than a logical uh pathway.
Um for instance, the business of the uh newspaper in New York City uh posting that that website that shows all the concealed uh weapon permits is just another way to perm to to pit neighbor against neighbor in this argument.
And to demonize gun owners for people who are not aware, it's a paper in Westchester County, which is outside of New York.
It printed this list of all of the people in New York that are that league you know that have have legally registered guns, which is a public record in New York State, and they're naming these people and putting their addresses out there, which is infuriated a lot of them.
What it is is what it they're implying here that the people who own those guns are somehow bad people.
I can't think of the last time any newspaper published the names and addresses of all of the felons in a state.
We haven't done anything like that, even though those people might actually be something of a risk.
It's this attempt to demonize anybody who believes that having a gun for personal safety or protection or whatever motivation, so long as it's law abiding, that they have is a terrible person.
What they want to do is marginalize people who believe in having access to guns, claim they're bad people, they're nutty people, they're dangerous people, as a substitute for actually discussing the issue.
It's all about divisiveness rather than trying to logically argue what we can do to make our society safer.
But you are right about this.
Gun control is one of their crown jewel issues.
They've always wanted it.
And every time you've got some sort of act of terrible violence that somebody commits with a gun, they trot this thing out again over and over and over.
It's just tiresome.
And it's not serious.
They're the ones that aren't making any sense.
You've got an organization that's committed to law abiding citizens having a right to have guns.
They have a right to argue that point of view in the United States.
They have millions of members who agree with the position of their organization.
They have a right to that viewpoint without a bunch of, you know, celebrities and media people and David Gregory on Meet the Press arguing that they're irresponsible, nutty wacko people.
They are not.
They're arguing a position that it's their right to hold, which makes a lot of sense to a lot of us, including me.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Even though the act itself is irrational, it seems to me that most of the people who've committed mass violence in the United States thought about it in a rational way.
They had a plan.
They generally thought out what they were going to do, and they chose specific targets.
It's never a situation in which somebody seems to be completely out of control and chooses a situation for no reason.
There's always something about the place that they choose that motivates them.
Columbine and the students there, they planned that thing for days.
The Fort Hood massacre.
You had a terrorist in the United States Army.
He wanted to kill his fellow soldiers.
He specifically chose to commit his act at the military base that he was stationed at.
The Connecticut shooter specifically targeted that school.
Given the fact that clearly these people, even though their thought process is warped, have a plan to try to get away with what they're doing and kill as many people as possible before killing themselves.
Put yourself in their head for a minute.
If you were going to shoot a bunch of children, would you go to a school where you thought there was a police officer with a gun, or would you go To the school where you figured that there nobody would have a gun.
Which school would you choose?
Again, I think that that's stating the obvious.
If you thought that there was somebody there who could stop you from doing what you want to do, would you go there?
I mentioned the John Lott piece in USA Today.
Law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey gun bans.
Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.
In the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within twenty minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns.
The suspect didn't go to the closest, nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense.
Time after time the story is the same.
We can't ask him, this is me talking now, not Lot.
We can't ask him.
But you sure would be fascinated in learning why he chose that theater in Colorado to shoot up.
Was it because he thought no one in that theater would have a gun that could stop him?
That that specific theater since it banned weapons would be a better place for him to get away with killing people than any one of the any number of other theaters that were showing that movie.
Back to Lot.
With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the United States since at least nineteen fifty has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.
Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
There's no panacea here.
You can have a police officer at a school, and the shooter could kill him.
You could have security at mall, the security officers could be taken out.
I don't deny that.
Even the Fort Hood shooting occurred at a military base where there's all sorts of soldiers who have access to weapons.
But the Fort Hood shooting occurred in the section of the base where the soldiers were not authorized to carry their weapons.
He specifically chose the section of the base where he knew no one would have weapons.
Is that not an argument for allowing good people to legally have access to weapons?
Is the NRA nutty because they think that people who are trained, qualified, have the ability to defend themselves should have the right to do so?
Well, what about these certain kinds of guns?
Okay, you ban all guns like the Bushmaster.
You ban the ones that have these large magazines that carry as many as thirty rounds of ammunition.
The guy you what's the magic number?
Fifteen and under, ten and under?
He brings along three magazines you use a weapon than the you know that isn't banned.
There's always going to be a way around those laws.
Secondly, what would possibly make you think that a person so warped, so evil, that he wants to kill school children, kindergarten children, would not do so because it's against the law to use this kind of gun.
Oh, I was gonna slaughter all these children, but nope, nope, nope.
Not going to do it because having the gun is illegal.
These arguments that are raised are moronic.
And the people that are standing up and objecting to them and trying to raise real alternatives that make sense shouldn't be marginalized.
They shouldn't be ridiculed.
They're offering, I think more of a contribution than people who throw out inane arguments about passing this gun law or passing that gun law when they aren't really serious at all about protecting our society.
My name is Mark Belling and I'm in for Rush Limbaugh.
Remember a few years ago, Rosie O'Donnell got all over Walmart for selling guns?
Turns out her security guard that guarded her children.
He he was carrying weapons.
That's all these people who want to ban guns, liberal politicians, media, entertainers, all the people who rip on the NRA.
It's a remarkable coincidence in how many of them are actually protected by people who are carrying guns, and who would be appalled if anyone suggested that they didn't have a right to have that security around them.
Let's go quickly to Elkton Grove, California and Daniel.
Daniel, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey Mark, how are you doing?
I'm great.
Hey, I uh was calling because I think you're really hitting it uh today.
Um we look at it and we we think we need to have a solution to the problem and um you know deterrent.
It's all about deterrent.
Um when we look at the situation, you go in the ki a Vegas casino, you see security cameras everywhere.
It's there for a reason.
Stop thieves.
You go into a bank, you see a security guard.
Stop bank robbers.
Deter them from doing what they're doing.
So why don't we empower all the vets that are working in these schools and uh give them the training?
They've already had the clearances.
Yeah, thank you for that point, Daniel.
I'm a little bit short on time here, but the point that he makes here actually is an attempt to focus on what we can do to help.
▲
Export Selection