Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rand Paul Schools Whoopi on Automatic Weapons

January 07, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Senator Rand Paul was a featured guest Wednesday on the ultra-liberal daytime talk show The View. When the topic of gun control came up, the senator held his ground, informing one co-host about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

"I just don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons," Whoopi Goldberg, a handgun owner, exclaimed.

Goldberg’s belief that automatic weapons are available to the public exposes her ignorance on the issue. Like most liberals, her ignorance doesn’t preclude outrage or advocating for the regulation of guns.

Senator Paul kindly explained that automatic weapons are actually banned, and what the The View co-host must have meant was "semiautomatic" weapons.

Glenn and his co-hosts on The Glenn Beck Program had a bit of fun discussing the exchange.

"I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg, I would love to know what kind of gun she has," Glenn posed. "Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon."

Watch the exchange between Senator Paul and Whoopi Goldberg beginning around 4:28.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Rand Paul and Whoopi Goldberg had a fascinating conversation about guns that we have to get to. In fact, we're going to start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Let's start with some good news on Rand Paul who is -- you know, is in my top three guys of who I could vote for. I could vote for -- and actually if Rand Paul was doing better in polls, I would say he's my number two guy. But as far as I am, full disclosure, policy-wise, it's Cruz, Rubio -- sorry -- Cruz, Paul, and then policy-wise, a distant third is Rubio. And the rest of them I don't think I could consider.

If I think of electability and policy be, it would be Cruz, Rubio, Paul. And I would have put Paul up there earlier if he hadn't just kind of fizzled out. I mean, he has -- unfortunately, he's nowhere to be seen. And I think this is a real tragedy.

But he is good. He is really good when he sits down for an interview and is going -- and you're arguing with him. Listen to him with Whoopi Goldberg on The View.

WHOOPI: I don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, they're not for hunting. They do nothing. They're not --

PAT: As if the Second Amendment was made for hunting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's a hunting clause. They call it the hunting --

GLENN: Sports and hunting. There wasn't bowling as we know it, at the time. Otherwise, that would have been the Third Amendment. Your right to bowl and go to bowling allies on Tuesday nights for our league shall not be infringed.

(laughter)

PAT: It's a pretty historically famous story, when James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson were sitting around. I think it was Gouverneur's pad one night.

GLENN: Pad?

PAT: And Tom said, "Jim, I don't know. We need something for hunters." And Gouv said, "Well, what about -- what if we let them have a gun so they can go out and shoot some deer from time to time?"

GLENN: You know what, let's make that the First Amendment. And that's when Jefferson knocked on the door and said, "No, you got to make it the second one. I have something about speech or something that I really want to do --

STU: It the right to pornography. We got to get that as the first one.

GLENN: That's right. There's going to be a guy in a golden wheelchair at some point that wants to show, you know, mama's jugs, and we got to get that in first place.

JEFFY: Amen.

(laughter)

PAT: And we call that the Jeffy Amendment.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So hang on. Before we go back. Whoopi is now talking about automatic weapons.

PAT: Automatic weapons.

GLENN: And we already have a ban on automatic weapons.

WHOOPI: -- are only there to kill. And you notice that a lot of things that happen, happen with automatic weapons.

GLENN: Can you stop for a second? She's so stupid.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Okay. So, first of all --

PAT: I just can't.

GLENN: -- the dumbest sentence of her mouth is not what you're thinking. I think the dumbest sentence of her mouth was, "Automatic weapons are only there to kill."

PAT: AR-15s, of course, the semiautomatic weapons are there to heal and as planters --

GLENN: Right.

STU: And handguns are known as the massage weapon.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, that's what a gun is for, to kill.

PAT: They're only there to kill. Stupid.

WHOOPI: -- why don't we say, "You know, who really needs to have one, other than people who are at war?"

(applause)

PAT: And then the lemming audience, every time, this drives me out of my mind. Oh, jeez.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: You have to understand, I've been on that set. I was on -- I'm on that set. They have applause signs, and they have people to get the audience to applaud.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So they're trained to be lemmings.

STU: But even if they were lemmings completely and they just had no thought and were clapping, you could be excused maybe for not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons or whatever.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But when you're a commentator making a point on the air about how smart you are about guns and how dumb the other argument is, shouldn't you be mildly aware that what you're saying is completely wrong?

PAT: Yes, mildly.

JEFFY: And she always makes a big point of being a gun owner.

PAT: She does.

GLENN: And I'd like to know what kind of gun she has. Does she have a revolver? Does she have a revolver, or does she have a Glock? Because if she has a Glock or a Sig, she owns a semiautomatic weapon. Unless she has a revolver or a flintlock, I'll give her Cap 'N Ball as well, she owns a semiautomatic.

PAT: Wow. And nobody needs that. That's the other thing. Progressives always do something you don't need. Nobody needs this. Nobody needs more money. Nobody needs certain things.

Well, who are you to tell me what I need and what I don't need?

GLENN: I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg -- I would love to know what kind of gun she has. Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon.

PAT: Yeah.

RAND: Truly automatic weapons, we don't have. You know, we banned truly automatic weapons I think in 193- --

WHOOPI: Yeah, but we still got a lot of them, Rand.

RAND: Well, what we have are not automatic weapons. We have semiautomatics --

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Stop. How many automatic weapons do we -- how many fully automatic weapons, just ballpark it, Stu. You had this number for me a couple days ago.

STU: Yes. I actually have the same article up. Give me a second, and I can find it.

GLENN: Truly automatic weapons.

STU: Something like 160,000.

PAT: 160,000 or something like that.

GLENN: I was amazed at the number. I own two fully automatic weapons. And I was amazed at the number -- how small the number is. 160,000 fully automatic weapons.

STU: We should point out none of the attacks --

PAT: None. Since 1934. There hasn't been one since 1934.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

PAT: There's been no automatic weapon fire killing Americans in America since about -- well, since 1933. Then they banned them in '34.

STU: Right. There are some. There is 160,000 that still exits.

PAT: They still exist. They're just not killing anybody.

STU: They were banned in 1986.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Do you know why? Do you know why? Because to buy them, first of all, the government has inflated their price so to buy a used -- a gun that costs you $3,000 can cost you anywhere from ten to $30,000, depending on how much everybody is freaked out by Barack Obama. Okay. So they've inflated the price, and they've made it almost impossible for you to buy or to use. You have to -- the reason why you could have 160,000 of these weapons out is because the people who have them are really, really responsible. You're going into a store, you're not going in and buying a -- I mean, even if you're a drug dealer and you have $10,000 to lay down on this weapon, you're not buying it.

STU: And you're going through so many background -- it's so ridiculous to try -- one of the first things they did with this was you had to have the head of your local police force sign a document saying it was okay for you to have an automatic weapon.

GLENN: I'm -- I'm not sure --

STU: I'm not sure if that still applies, but that's one of the first --

GLENN: I'm not sure, but I think at least in Connecticut, maybe in Texas too, I think -- something makes me remember that I think I had to let the police department know that I had an automatic weapon.

STU: Oh, yeah. And there's all sorts of requirements like that. Drug dealers are not going in and getting legal automatic weapons. That's absolutely implausible.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: And they're not letting the local police chief know they have it either.

STU: No.

GLENN: Right. And I will tell you this. I think your stat -- you should check with the border. I think with all the drug cartels. Because they're carrying now automatic weapons on our side of the border with the drug cartels.

PAT: Yeah, the drug cartels rarely kill people in America though. They kidnap them and take them to Mexico. But rarely do they kill their potential customers. It usually doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay. Good one.

RAND: In a fairly fast sequence, but you can't pull the trigger and then come like a machine gun. Those are -- those are no longer out there.

WHOOPI: Okay. But you know what I'm saying.

RAND: Yeah. This is --

GLENN: No, I don't.

STU: Yes, we do know what you're saying. What you're saying is you don't know anything about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: What you're saying is stupid. Yeah.

STU: You're announcing it to everyone who does know something about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: And thank you for doing that.

GLENN: I wish he would have asked her, what kind of handgun do you have? Because that would have sealed it that she has no idea. Whoopi, what kind of handgun do you have? I don't know. It's a --

STU: It's a little black one.

GLENN: Does it have a revolver? Do you spin the chamber out, and do you put the six little bullets in and put it back in?

No, I put it in with the clip. I put the clip in the bottom of it. Okay. All right. Then you have a semiautomatic. I thought no one needed one of those.

STU: Guaranteed that's what she has.

GLENN: Guarantee it.

PAT: Oh, that would have shut it down completely.

GLENN: Shut it down completely.

RAND: People do hunt with them. And do shooting. And sport shooting and target shooting with these guns. And come to Kentucky, I'll introduce you to -- there are a lot of people who like and enjoy this as a sport. But the other problem is if we're going to take away ownership of specific types of guns, you really have to modify -- something that big has to either be legislation or even possibly a constitutional amendment. We can't allow one individual to do it, and I'll give you an example why.

Let's say we had a terrible president that you didn't like from another party, and that president said, "The View, oh, you should hear the things they're saying on The View. We should limit their speech. We should register the journalists, and then we should have an approval board." And, you know, that's silly. We would all be opposed to that. But that's the danger of letting a president make the rules.

PAT: Undeterred, here's how Whoopi finishes.

WHOOPI: Sorry, man. There's no reason anybody needs to have an automatic weapon. I'm sorry. I get everything else --

(applause)

PAT: She's just told they've been banned.

GLENN: She doesn't have any idea.

PAT: No idea.

GLENN: These people are so stupid. So stupid.

STU: And it's not just Whoopi Goldberg, by the way. Michael Bloomberg, the guy who is donating tens of millions of dollars to organizations to stop you having a gun has made the same mistake on television.

GLENN: No, he has.

STU: And several journalists have done it as well.

GLENN: And I'd like to ask Michael Bloomberg what kind of gun he carries because he has a carry permit. What kind of gun does Michael Bloomberg carry? Does he carry a six shooter?

PAT: No way. You know he doesn't.

STU: He has one with a bayonet on it.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I've got to open up the powder tray and put some powder into it. Nobody needs more than one shot.

STU: You don't have to know every detail about guns. But if you're telling people that they have to restrict certain types of guns, you need to know what types they are. You need to understand whether they're already banned and have been since the 1930s. That's kind of a major issue. And you need to have a basic handle on that before you start running your mouth.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The View

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.