'Just Do Something'? Chris Cuomo, Charles Cooke Debate Gun Control

How do we stop mass shooters?

Would requiring background checks for private gun sales reduce gun violence?

Should new laws stop people flagged for unstable behavior from buying guns?

How does due process factor in?

Why don’t we just “do something”?

Earlier this week, CNN’s Chris Cuomo and National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke debated some of the most common questions and issues as the nation looks at gun control laws.

On today’s show, Glenn was pretty certain about who came out on top of the debate.

“[Cooke is] clear with logic. He’s doing math. Cuomo is doing Common Core math,” Glenn joked on today’s show while introducing the clip. Listen to the full segment (above) to hear the discussion (skip to 6:36 in the clip for Cooke and Cuomo’s debate).

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I mean, it -- let me play something -- let me play Cuomo versus Charles Cook. Charles Cook, who is great. He's on this network from time to time. And he was part of the real news.

He's just a great thinker. Now, listen to him -- he's clear with logic. He's doing math.

Cuomo is doing Common Core math. Listen to this.

VOICE: I don't understand why there would be resistance to -- you know, especially for lawful people. Why wouldn't you have all sales applicable to a background check?

VOICE: Well, the first argument, and I think this is always a good thing to remember, when the government gets involved, whether it's the War on Terror or drugs, is that, as I say, there isn't a great deal of evidence that it works, or that sheriffs prioritize it in states that have them.

Second reason is that if it's as it's been suggested thus far, it would effectively create a gun registry. And gun registries are opposed I think for good reason, by those who have --

VOICE: But you already have it for the majority of sales. This would just be making it in all transactions. Why create a loophole, when you don't need one? Its practical impact is something to consider. But as a prophylactic device, I just don't understand a good argument against it.

VOICE: Well, I think as I say, a good argument against it is that recent studies conducted, it should be said, by gun control advocates and written up by gun control advocates, who have conceded that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it does anything. And if we're trying to improve the situation on the ground here, then that doesn't seem --

GLENN: Now, listen to this logic from Chris.

VOICE: Well, and the argument for it would be, you might as well try whatever you can, because you have so many guns getting into the wrong sets of hands.

GLENN: It doesn't work. But try it.

VOICE: Go ahead. Make your final point.

VOICE: Well, I think, that you see, I think that's where we have to be careful here. Because there is this argument in the aftermath of mass shootings, and we saw a lot of it last night. In what I thought was an unhelpful town hall, held at the wrong time. We see a lot of this argument, you have to do something. But, of course, we don't all agree we need to do anything. Marco Rubio came out last night against the idea of, say, arming teachers. It wouldn't be a particularly convincing response to say, well, why doesn't he just want to do something?

VOICE: He did say he would do certain things. He did --

VOICE: No, I agree. But just saying, why don't we just do something, why don't we try that, there's nothing to lose? Is not a standard we apply across the board.

VOICE: Not arbitrary things.

VOICE: Why do you say arbitrary?

VOICE: Look, Charles, what I'm saying, we agree, you should do things that are calculated to make a real difference. You should base it on debate and data and research in the area --

GLENN: Research. What?

VOICE: There's no question about that. There's no reason just to throw out any kind of solution that won't work. But, look, at the end of the day, it's a debate worth having. We need all sides. And I appreciate you being here. Take it easy --

GLENN: He didn't say anything.

PAT: You just lost the argument. Badly. Badly.

GLENN: You just lost the argument. We agree. We need to make sure we're looking at research and data.

Right. I just told you the research and data says it does nothing.

(laughter)

GLENN: Right. But in the end -- you know he wanted to say, but in the end, we do need to do something.

STU: Right. And, by the way, that something is the thing I want. No other thing. Because there's lots of other things out there that I don't think we should do. But the thing I want to do should be the something we should do.

GLENN: And I have to tell you, Charles, his response is, well, you know, the president said arm teachers. That's doing something.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And you could see Cuomo like immediately, his body language, it just shifted to dismiss. Arming teachers. Well, that's just stupid.

Wait. Why don't we try it. Let's just do something.

PAT: Yeah. What the heck.

(music)

STU: Pat Gray Unleashed coming up on TheBlaze Radio and TV network. Just a moment. Well, we think the thing that you're suggesting is stupid.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's why we're dismissing it. You know, it's interesting. I keep hearing this about the teachers and arming the teachers.

And I'm not saying it's my top policy prescription for this, but stop for a second. We keep hearing these same things come out of people's mouths, even from teachers. They're like, you know, teaching algebra. I don't want to be defending kids -- I don't want to be pointing a Smith & Wesson while I'm -- I'm teaching algebra. You're not going to be pointing it, when you're teaching algebra. You're going to be pointing it when an active shooter is at your door.

GLENN: Right.

STU: The same thing with the security situation with the deputy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He's out there, and they're like, this proves that the security at schools won't work. The guy just stood outside and didn't do anything. Well, first of all, yes, it is a requirement of the policy for the guy to go inside. Yes, granted. But, again, take everybody in that situation, you're a minute and a half into that, you have a choice to make, would you rather have a security personnel that's armed, walking up to the building, who may or may not come inside, or would you rather have nobody?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Nobody with guns inside, nobody with guns --

GLENN: Let me just say this: Why did we not have a problem when the airlines trained everyone on the flight deck to use a gun after 9/11. Remember that? We're going to have our pilots have guns.

Yep. And we had our Navy SEALs and all of the experts go in and train the people on the flight deck how to use a gun.

Then we hardened the door.

STU: Air marshals as well.

GLENN: And we put air marshals in. Somebody on the plane with a gun. Well, you don't want a shoot-out in an airplane. Yeah, if it means we're all going to do to die or he dies, yeah, I'm going to go for the shoot-out on the airplane.

STU: What you really don't want is a one-person shoot-out. Those shoot-outs suck. Because there's nothing you can do about it. When one person starts shooting, you want a two or three or four-person shoot-out. You want bullets flying both ways, once they start flying one way.

GLENN: It doesn't seem to be a problem to arm our pilots. Why is it a problem, to arm and train some teachers?

I don't see a problem with it.

STU: Look, it's not going to solve every one of these.

GLENN: No.

STU: Security --

GLENN: It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

STU: Everything worked when it came to this shooting, as far as security goes, until the guy stayed outside. And maybe sometimes people will fail. These are impossible situations to predict how you're going to act. But, I mean, don't you want the possibility of success? They're rejecting the possibility of success for the possibility of failure.

GLENN: I would just like to say that the failure is not just on Scott Peterson, the sheriff's deputy.

STU: Oh, no, no.

GLENN: But on the sheriff himself and whoever is training to -- to not see this as a problem.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.