Should Stevie Wonder be able to buy a gun?

January 24, 2013

Writer

Heated debate broke out on radio today as to whether or not a blind person should be able to own a gun or not. Should disability mean a loss of your constitutional rights? Or should common sense be applied and not let people who cannot see walk around carrying weapons? Glenn, who argued for the former, believed he could convince people who didn't think blind people should have guns that he was right, and he could do it in less than five sentences.

During a quick interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Stevie Wonder said, "And I was talking to one of my friends, and I said, you know, you should go get me a gun, let me go with you to get a gun, and then I can show how easy it is for me to get a gun. Then imagine me with a gun. It’s just crazy. I think we have to do something about it."

Is he right? Is it crazy for a blind person to have a gun? Glenn didn't think so, and he had five sentences to prove his argument.

What were the five sentences?

"Inalienable rights" mean that they're rights that come from God and cannot be taken from you. The right to bear arms is about protecting yourself and self‑defense as long as you are a law‑abiding citizen. It's not about shooting sports but self‑defense. Is there any reason to believe that Stevie Wonder is not a law‑abiding citizen or insane? Who are you to take the right that was given by God away from somebody who is law‑abiding and a responsible citizen?

While Glenn makes a sound argument, Pat was not convinced and a heated debated ensued.

PAT: First of all, we have limits on all our inalienable rights. None of them are limitless rights. The right to free speech is not limitless. This, the example that's always cited is you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater.
GLENN: Absolutely.
PAT: Because you could harm others.
GLENN: Hang on. But we do not put gags in people's mouths when they walk into a theater.
PAT: I know, but there are common sense things that you have to take into consideration like ‑‑
GLENN: So do we.
PAT: ‑‑ what will this person do with a gun when he has it when he can't see what he's shooting at?
GLENN: I'm sorry. But I don't ‑‑ I don't know that we make a blanket law like that. I don't ‑‑ I'm ‑‑ who are you to say that?
PAT: Can we make a blanket law that you can't drive?
GLENN: If I have a ‑‑ do I just say, "Hey, anybody with Tourette's can't go into a movie theater" because I don't know. They might scream out "fire! Fire!" They say the most inappropriate thing at the most inappropriate time. So do we just say, "Okay, just blanket law. I know everybody can go, has freedom of speech, but you people with Tourette's, you might say something that is really inappropriate and against the law." Do we do that?
PAT: No, but that's ‑‑ that's a silly example. Because we're talking about ‑‑
GLENN: No, it's not a silly example. Excuse me.
PAT: We're talking about common sense. And common sense says that you've got a deadly weapon in the hands of somebody who can't see what they're shooting at.
GLENN: Why is it against the law to yell fire in a movie theater? Because it will cause panic and people will trample people to death.
PAT: Uh‑huh.
GLENN: So it's a deadly weapon. The tongue is a pretty powerful weapon.
PAT: That's just silly.
GLENN: No, it is not silly.

When Pat argued that blind people would not know what they were looking at, Glenn got even more riled.

"You don't know what you're looking at," Pat said.

"You've turned me around. That's why we should not let blind people on sidewalks because if they're by themselves without a dog, how can they possibly ever cross the street? They can't cross the street. They can't see cars coming. They don't even know what's out in the street. We teach our kids right from birth practically, look both ways. They can't look both ways. Let's not let them on the sidewalk, they can never go on the street," Glenn said.

The argument continued throughout the show, with Glenn

"I am not taking away somebody's right to own a gun and use it in self‑defense, unless they are an irresponsible person that has proven themselves to be irresponsible because of insanity or because they're not a law‑abiding citizen," Glenn said.

The argument continued throughout the show, but eventually in the second hour everyone arrived roughly in the same place on the issue:

GLENN: So Pat said he was torn on it. Stu said he was torn on it. And I made the case last hour that you shouldn't be torn on it. Stevie Wonder is a law‑abiding citizen, he's an intelligent human being, he's a responsible human being, he's wrong on a lot of stuff but he's a responsible human being. Stevie Wonder's not going to go into a gun store and buy a gun and then just be like, "Look at me. I'm the blind man with a gun, pow, pow, pow." There's nobody who is buying a gun that is reasonable that doesn't understand that is a deadly weapon. That's why we don't let kids go in and buy guns. Because you have to have a certain level of understanding.
Now, there's a lot of people that I don't think should have a gun but as long as they're not breaking the law, as long as they have not proven themselves to be grossly irresponsible, I can't take that away. I can't take away their inalienable right for self‑defense.
PAT: And I think we've all now arrived at that same place, right?
GLENN: You can't ‑‑
PAT: I'm there, yes. It's ‑‑
GLENN: And Pat ‑‑ and Stu is there. Jeffy, are you there?
JEFFY: I'm sorry. What?
GLENN: Are you listening to Imus again? Are you ‑‑ are you there
JEFF: Yes.
GLENN: Yes.
JEFFY: Yes.
GLENN: All right. Thank you. Jeez, for the love of Pete.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck's 'No King but Christ' merch: Will faith STOP the chaos?

On Saturday, June 14, 2025 (President Trump's 79th birthday), the "No Kings" protest—a noisy spectacle orchestrated by progressive heavyweights like Randi Weingarten and her union cronies—will take place in Washington, D.C.

Thousands will chant "no thrones, no crowns, no king," claiming to fend off authoritarianism and corruption.

But let’s cut through the noise. The protesters' grievances—rigged courts, deported citizens, slashed services—are a house of cards. Zero Americans have been deported, Federal services are still bloated, and if anyone is rigging the courts, it's the Left. So why rally now, especially with riots already flaring in L.A.?

Chaos isn’t a side effect here—it’s the plan.

This is not about liberty; it's a power grab dressed up as resistance. The "No Kings" crowd wants you to buy their script: government’s the enemy—unless they’re the ones running it. It's the identical script from 2020: same groups, same tactics, same goal, different name.

But Glenn is flipping the script. He's dropping a new "No Kings but Christ" merch line, just in time for the protest. Merch that proclaims one truth: no earthly ruler owns us; only Christ does. It’s a bold, faith-rooted rejection of this secular circus.

Why should you care? Because this won’t just be a rally—it’ll be a symptom. Distrust in institutions is sky-high, and rightly so, but the "No Kings" answer is a hollow shout into the void. Glenn’s merch begs the question: if you’re ditching kings, who’s really in charge? Get yours and wear the answer proudly.

Glenn's Show Prep