Why does Colorado want to regulate shotguns?

Colorado has been at the center of some controversies related to gun control over the past few weeks, and they aure aren't looking to get out of the spotlight anytime soon. A new law would come after the standard shotgun, and it's already passed the House.

"Colorado has a new bill that's been passed by the House, now going to the Senate. It would ban the standard shotgun. Why? Because you can take the tube at the end, you can take the tube off of it and you can put an extension on it. And when you put an extension on it, you can hold up to, I don't know what it is, 12 or 14 shells. And that's just too much. Why would anybody need 14 shells? Why would anybody need? Oh, I don't know. I was just at the gun range this weekend and I used a shotgun just like that. Why ‑‑ why not? Why can't I have 14 shells?" Glenn said.

"They are now going after the standard shotgun. Not the extension, but your gun, your shotgun, if it's a pump shotgun, it can be modified and so that's not ‑‑ what does that leave you with? That leaves you with a shotgun that's a double barrel because two shots is enough."

TheBlaze explains:

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy told KCNC-TV.

The bill, aimed at banning high-capacity ammunition, has already passed the House and has support from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. If it’s signed into law, it will also seriously limit shotguns used by most hunters in the state, according to the station.

“Hundreds of thousands of pheasant hunters are probably going to be carrying around a gun they won’t be able to replace after July 1 this year,” Brophy told KCNC.

In a state that’s seen two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history — Aurora and Columbine — Brophy said there’s a section of the bill that defines a high-capacity magazine as one that can hold or be converted to hold more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells.

"Has anybody asked why is Colorado the leader of all of this gun regulation besides New York? Why? Because they have New York and then they are looking at the other end of the spectrum and they're saying Colorado. And they're putting the pressure on the politicians in will Colorado, the White House is, to get them to pass all this stuff."

Glenn suggested that Colorado was leading the charge from a strategic standpoint because it has traditionally been a pro-gun state. If they pass the new regulation, then the spectrum from traditionally anti-gun states, like New York, and pro-gun states, like Colorado, are covered.

Glenn then went into history, explaining the role that the NRA played in Reconstruction and how banning guns could end up like Prohibition America.

Transcript below:

Look. You know there's a ‑‑ I want to show you this. This is an original. This is an original document from the National Rifle Association. It's not even in their archives. In fact, I told them that I had this and they were like, "You what? Huh?" This is the National Rifle Association, this is a certificate of membership and it says this person is in ‑‑ a member in good order and it is signed. I don't know if you can see here because there's so much glare on it. I'm trying to get it so ‑‑ there it is. It's kind right there by Ulysses S. Grant, president of the National Rifle Association. Now why is U. S. Grant president of the National Rifle Association? Because the National Rifle Association was started by two union generals. That's why. And why was it started by two union generals? Because what was going on with Reconstruction with the South. And they knew they needed to get people to understand the Second Amendment and they needed to get people trained with guns because of the oppression that was happening in the South.

Now think of that. What is the ‑‑ what is the ‑‑ what is the ‑‑ who's killing here in America? Where are most of the gun murders happening? They're happening in the inner city. Where are ‑‑ where are the strictest gun control laws?

PAT: Inner cities.

GLENN: Inner city, right? Who lives in the inner city? Mainly minorities. The poor. So they're living in these drug‑infested neighborhoods with no way to protect themselves. This is exactly what was happening with Reconstruction, and the KKK. It wasn't the drug dealers. It was the KKK. And during Reconstruction, the white man in the South was saying, "Yeah, you guys can't have any guns." So they weren't able to defend themselves.

The National Rifle Association is important. Has been important for a long time. When you see the signature of Ulysses S. Grant, the greatest union general, the one that won the war, when you see his signature on a membership card, his actual ‑‑ he hand‑signed it, and he says president of the National Rifle Association, that's not president of the United States. That's the president of the NRA. Because his buddies started it. To make sure you could go after the KKK. The same thing is happening. It's just not the KKK. Minorities are the ones who are going to be hit the hardest on this because, what, you really think ‑‑ go ask anybody in these drug neighborhoods. Go ask them. If they're living there, really, is gun control going to stop this? These guys, are they buying guns legally and they are filling out all the paperwork? Do you think they are doing that? You think you could stop ‑‑ you know this is the progressive way: They really thought they could stop people from drinking with Prohibition. Because it's the right thing to do. "People hurt themselves. People get drunk and it's bad." And so they make it illegal to have alcohol. And they think they can stop people from drinking and so what happened? People were making it in stills in the woods. People were getting it across the borders and smuggling it in. And what happened then? Illegal crime went through ‑‑ illegal crime. Illegal booze starts coming through the border, you've ‑‑ all of a sudden you have these giant mobsters like Al Capone. What do you think Al Capone was funded on? He was funded by illegal booze. That's what he was funded with. Because people couldn't get it. So he could charge an arm and a leg. It makes the crime syndicate go through the roof. The same thing with the drug war. The drug war is doing nothing, gang. Nothing. Except make these guys a buttload of money. The same thing that happened with alcohol. We have to start realizing these connections. And they think they are going to wipe out gun crime? They are only going to make it much, much worse because there's always somebody that will provide that gun. And how many legal Americans who live in a tough neighborhood, who know that it's not about the government to them, who live in a tough spot will then do business with somebody they know, they would never do business with because they fear for their children's lives?

Let me ask you something: If they make guns illegal and you happen to fear for your life, if your daughter fears because somebody is stalking her and you can't buy a gun, let me ask you a question: Will you at least consider going to a nefarious underworld type to buy a gun to protect your child? I don't think there's a dad within the sound of my voice that wouldn't at least consider it, especially when you've grown up in a country where you know that right to defend yourself comes from God.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.