BLOG

Legal Gun Owners Realize the Responsibility of What They're Holding in Their Hand

Just one week before the anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, a 45-year-old disgruntled man armed himself with a handgun and a knife to kill five ex-coworkers and himself at his former place of employment in the same city. The shootings do not appear to be terror-related, which means the conversation is bound to head down the gun control road.

Mike Broomhead, host of The Mike Broomhead Show, filled in for Glenn on radio Monday and explained how offensive and disrespectful these conversations are to law-abiding citizens who own guns.

"Anybody who has ever fired a handgun or a rifle, you realize the responsibility of what you're holding in your hand. It is nothing to joke about, and nobody that I know does. But when somebody uses it the wrong way, how do you blame the gun?" Broomhead said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

MIKE: All right. Thanks for being here this morning. Update of what's happening in Orlando. We are just finding out that a 45-year-old disgruntled ex-employee was armed with a handgun and a knife and eventually killed himself. So he killed -- shot five other people and then turned the gun on himself. A former disgruntled employee. One of the things we pointed was a possibility earlier, they're now confirming that. It does not appear to be terrorism-related. It's not Islamist. It's not a terrorist group. It is a disgruntled employee that went back, and for whatever reason, murdered five people and then turned the gun on himself.

It is -- it's one of those situations where now we will begin to have the conversation of, who is this person? Why did he do it? Why did he have access to the guns that he had?

And it's a sad commentary. It really is more about how detached you can be from reality that the option for you is to murder people. Crimes of passion and murders between people that dislike or hate each other are horrible enough to have that kind of hate in your heart. But to murder strangers or coworkers, people that you barely know, it seems to me to be in a deeper place. Addressing a lot of this is important. And the more this comes up, we're going to hear more and more about this in the coming days. Bloomberg is going to come out with a statement. Other people will come out with statements of how we should be ending gun violence and hearing more about gun control. And it really is disrespectful to those of us that believe in firearms.

You know, we -- as I said, I don't see them -- it's not a power. Anybody who has ever fired a handgun or a rifle, you realize the responsibility of what you're holding in your hand. It is nothing to joke about. And nobody that I know does.

But when somebody uses it the wrong way, how do you blame the gun? We're going to find out more and pay closer attention to this person. Whether it's somebody that has had some issues, where they were told to go to counseling -- and if you look at -- statistically, go back through all of the mass shootings that are in recent memory, going all the way back to Columbine. From Virginia Tech to what happened in Tucson, Arizona, with a guy named Jared Loughner, that gunned down a congresswoman, and a judge, and a little girl and multiple other people at an event on a Saturday morning. You look at James Holmes in Colorado, who did the theater shooting. Adam Lanza who did the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school. You look at all of those cases, and what they have in common: Two things, they used guns. But they also suffered from severe dangerous mental illness. And it's such a fine line in America.

We cannot lump everybody together that has some form of mental illness or another as dangerous. We can't do that. Just as like we couldn't say the common cold is the same thing as cancer. It's not.

Two completely different things, both of them labeled as an illness. Things you would go to see doctors for. But one is much more dangerous than the other.

So we can't stigmatize people because they have some sort of mental illness. We shouldn't be able to do that. But, on the other hand, what can we do to people that are a danger to themselves or a danger to society? People that are prescribed psychotropic drugs, that when they're on their medication, can live a normal, fruitful life. But when they don't take their medication, they become a danger to society. They become a danger to themselves.

So we can then, at times, when they pose threats, when they make threats, we can forcibly take them to a hospital, put them on a 72-hour hold, or whatever. Doctors can then medicate them. Now they're on their medication. They're not making threats. They're not a threat to themselves. They're not a threat to society. So we can't hold them any longer. And I'm not saying that there's an easy answer. Because there isn't. The same constitutional conversation you have, trying to take someone's rights or limit people's rights to accessing firearms, there is a very difficult constitutional argument that has to be had or conversation that has to be had about what we can do about the people that are dangerously mentally ill. We are never going to stop every attack, like what we just -- what we're hearing about in Orlando. It happens, unfortunately.

But we can -- when the signs are there, figure out what we can do with people, so that like in the case of Virginia Tech, a guy is not walking in a gun-free zone, chaining doors shut and just shooting people. That, to me, is let's get to the solution of how we stop this. Don't say, as was said by people after Sandy Hook, that people like myself care more about keeping my guns than I do about dead kids. That is a bigger kick in the stomach. That is an insult. I was so torn up over the Sandy Hook thing, I could almost not do my show that day. I didn't know what I was possibly going to say.

I have a five and a half-year-old grandson. Those kids were six. Seven years old. No way you're going to tell me that I'm heartless enough to say, I'm risking their lives. It's not possible.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

'White Knights' ROB Black People of Their Honor | Ep 147

Two years after the death of George Floyd, are America and the black community actually better off? When Delano Squires first looked at Black Lives Matter’s principles, he realized that they weren’t at all what he believes in: nothing about God or families and plenty about the opposite. Now, as a contributor to BlazeTV’s "Fearless with Jason Whitlock" and a scholar at 1776 Unites, he’s unafraid to call it as it is: Leftists are robbing black people of their dignity and honor and treating them like children. Meanwhile, self-sufficient black men are painted as white supremacists. This week on "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Delano breaks down how far America has gone — in the wrong direction — since the riots of 2020 and why the abortion debate is a clear example. And he explains why faith in God, not the “Biden blackness” of the Democratic Party, is the true solution.

Shorts

Was Elon Musk just RED PILLED?

It looks like Elon Musk was red-pilled yesterday. He came out and said he always voted for the Democrats, mainly because he thought they were the nice guys. Boy, did he wake up and he even said that he would be voting all Republican now. Elon, I would like to red pill you again. I wish we had faith in the Republican Party, but it's better than voting and pushing the garbage from the extreme radicalized left.

Shorts

Why the Disinformation Board was REALLY canceled…

Just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being paused and Nina Jankowicz is now on her way out. I'll bet you, in six months, we'll come back around to this -- mark it in your calendar. We'll come around to this story and say, oh. Remember when they canceled that? Yeah. They just shifted everything, under this umbrella, to hide it.

RADIO

How the WHO's 'pandemic treaty' could CONTROL governments

On May 22nd, the World Health Assembly — which is the governing body of The World Health Organization — will meet in Switzerland to discuss next steps for its ‘pandemic treaty [and its] quest to use public health to expand The WHO’s power over sovereign states,’ Daniel Horowitz reports for TheBlaze. He explains how certain amendments to be added to this treaty could ‘allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency in a country and unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions.’ The far-left and global elite continue to destroy our sovereignty, Glenn says, and this is just one more step toward their desired global government.

Read more: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-states-mus...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I read some stuff this morning. I've been doing some research on what's happening with the WHO. And I read their stuff today, that will make your head explode. And is really evil and important.

But let me give you this today, from -- from Daniel Horowitz at TheBlaze. States must preemptively nullify any WHO international pandemic regulation.

I'm going to read it verbatim because it's just so well-written. And now is the time, that things are shifting. We're going to. There's going to be a New World Order out there. And we've got to lead it. And we have to unite the rest of the free world in doing it. That's Joe Biden. March 21st, 2022.

Any Republican that is running without mentioning your intent to fight the global pandemic treaty or regulations, might as well run as a Democrat. This is really super important, and it is beginning to happen next week. On May 22nd, the world health assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, is going to meet in Geneva Switzerland to discuss the next step in its pandemic treaty. And the quest to use public health to expand the WHO's power over sovereign states. Representatives from 193 nations, including the US, will be attending the only country, not invited is Taiwan.

Gee, I wonder why. So what is this treaty? On January 24th, 2022, the director general of the WHO explained the treaty was a priority, to urgently strength the WHO, as leading and the director authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture. He laid out the guiding principle of this plot. We, quote, all want a world in which science triumphs over misinformation. Solidarity triumphs over division. And equity is a reality, not an aspiration. He said, we are one world, we have one health. We are one WHO.

Now, this has not been announced. Biden has not even spoken about it. They are deathly quiet about this. But they're going to be approving amendments. The proposed amendments are essentially going to allow the director general of the WHO to declare public health emergencies in any country. And unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions. Here's one of the amendments, a critical section from article nine. The WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party, whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. But this is the way it's going to read. Now, WHO may take into account, reports from sources of other than notifications or consultations -- consultations shall assess these reports, according to established principles. And then communicate information on the event, to the state party, in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.

Now, they have scratched out, before taking any action based on reports, the WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party. That's all gone. They're taking that out.

So WHO gets information, has reports, and they can act without verifying with the president or anybody else.

Why would you be erasing the requirement, for the WHO to consult with the government?

Number four. If the state party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO, it used to say, May. It now says, WHO shall -- when justified by the magnitude of public health risk, immediately share with other state parties, the information available, whilst encouraging the state party to accept the offer of collaboration, by the WHO. It used to say there, while taking into accounts the views of the state party concerned.

So they're erasing all of our sovereignty. This is going to be another thing. They're going to say, is a conspiracy theory. It is not. You can look it all up. It is the world health agenda. From the World Health Organization. They are meeting in Geneva, on May 22nd. So that's next week. They are intentionally quiet on this.

Because they know the power. Now, we also know what the WHO is. You remember, when everybody was saying, we have to get out of the WHO.

They're just a tool of China. Why would you say that?

Forget that I mentioned that Taiwan is the only country that is not invited to this in Geneva.

PAT: Yeah. That's completely -- completely irrelevant.

GLENN: Completely. Amen, brother.

PAT: I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: It's a good thing they weren't actually -- I wish we weren't invited to it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this. Another reason why Donald Trump. They fought so hard to keep him out: Because he wouldn't have --

PAT: He sure wouldn't have. That's exactly right.

GLENN: He wouldn't have empowered the WHO.

PAT: Well, he took us out of the WHO.

GLENN: That's exactly right. And this president is not only putting us back, they're taking away our sovereignty.

And so it's one more piece to the global governance of the left. Warning.