Joe Biden's (horrible) advice on self-defense

Noted firearms "expert" Joe Biden was taking questions from his constituents yesterday about the administrations proposal to reduce gun violence. One question, from Kate Ernest, asked the question:

"Do you believe that banning certain weapons and capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves."

Decent question. The answer however…sub optimal.

Here's the VP's response to Ms. Ernest:

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double‑barrel shotgun.  Have the shells, a 12‑gauge shotgun, and I promise you as I told my wife We live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded.  Said, "Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here or walk out, put that double‑barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.  I promise you who is ever coming in is not going to, you don't need an AR‑15.  It's harder to aim, it's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.  Buy a shotgun.  Buy a shotgun."

"If I was Joe Biden, I would not tell my wife to get a shotgun.  You know what I'm saying?" Glenn joked. "I just, I would be careful of telling her, "Hey, I could be back.  Get a shotgun."  But I'm sure he's a delight to live with."

Glenn quickly noted that Joe probably shouldn't have used the words "I promise you" in his response. He doesn't have a clue what someone is going to do, but they do know — thanks to the VP's specificity — that you just fired your double barrel shotgun, which means until you reload you're practically unarmed.

Beyond that, why has he instructed his wife to go outside on the porch when someone is breaking in?

"How irresponsible is that?  Who tells their wife, 'You know what, honey?  Just fire a couple of shots.'  I've never told my wife that, never," Glenn said. "You don't pick up a gun unless you're prepared to kill something…Anybody who knows anything about gun safety, they will tell you:  You don't fire warning shots."

Glenn went on to explain exactly what he has told his wife to do in that situation…and not one bit of it involved a shotgun or going outside.

"Honey, you grab the gun" Not a shotgun, because a shotgun will put her on her butt.  I did get her a Walther, it's a great little gun. She can shoot that and she can shoot that really well and she goes out to the range.  She's a better shot than I am, and I'm a good shot," he said.

He went on to explain he told her to tell the intruder that she is armed, feels threatened, and she will shoot them if they don't identify themselves.

"And then if they ‑‑ if they still come forward, then it's, "I'm about to throw up!  And I have combination skin!" Pat joked, referring to the story yesterday out of Colorado University.

When you look at the choices being given to American citizens for self-defense, it's amazingly clear who has the best ones — the people.

Colorado Congressmen have offered rape whistles and ballpoint pens.

Joe Biden thinks shooting a double-barrel shotgun out into no man's land will do the trick.

And the University of Coloradio offered their ingenious tips like "passive resistance" and kicking off your shoes…

What's Glenn's advice? Don't take any of their advice… Legally buy a gun and learn how to use it responsibly.

 

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.