Glenn Beck: More guns, less crime


John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime.

GLENN: Let's go to John Lott. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the actual facts if you want to talk about it. John, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

LOTT: Great to be back on, thanks.

GLENN: You bet. So tell me what happened yesterday in the Supreme Court and why everybody is so convinced that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gun owners.

LOTT: Well, it's an extremely important case. If the Supreme Court were to say that the D.C. gun ban doesn't infringe on people's right to be able to own a gun, essentially there would be no gun regulation that could ever be struck down and so a lot's at stake at this. And the two questions that the Supreme Court is basically looking at, one, is it an individual right or not. And if it is, is it the same -- should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights. And it seems pretty clear from the discussion yesterday that a majority of the justices think it is an individual right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, should be interested to see how NPR, begin what you're just saying, would deal with that.

GLENN: She's hot.

LOTT: Seems to believe it's an individual right. Justice Kennedy came swinging right out at the beginning saying that this notion that somehow the Second Amendment was set up to go and guarantee government certain rights, you know, just didn't make any sense to him. And so someone who you might normally think of as the swing vote, a key swing vote there seemed to be very solidly in the camp of saying that this is an individual right.

GLENN: Explain the two -- explain the two things that are in front of -- okay. First, is it an individual right, I got. The second one, if it is, should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights?

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it be?

LOTT: Well, you know, you and I would think the same way on that, but the Justice Department kind of threw a monkey wrench into this when they put their brief in a couple of months ago. They were arguing that, you know, words can't really hurt people that much, guns can and so for example, just comparing the First and the Second Amendment, you shouldn't give the same deference to the Second Amendment as you would to the First because more's at risk there and you should be more willing to accept government regulation of guns because of that than regulation of free speech. And just so people understand, we're really given constitutional decisions these days. Nobody's really talking about not having regulations with guns. You take something like the First Amendment where it says congress shall make no laws. That seems pretty clear. But yet congress has -- or the Supreme Court has gotten to the point where it said that if -- what they are really saying is congress shall pass, make no laws unless it has a good reason for doing so and so we have things like campaign finance regulation. And the question is where do you set the bar in terms of saying how good do those reasons have to be. How compelling, how closely tied do you have to show that the regulation that you're having is connected to the outcome that you want to produce. And the Justice Department worried that it might affect some of the gun regulations that it enforces, that it wants to have a sufficiently low standard that maybe even the D.C. gun ban would be able to pass constitutional muster. And --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hang on, hang on. The DC gun ban.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: You cannot have a gun inside of your own home. You can't even have an assembled rifle inside of your home, correct?

LOTT: That's right.

GLENN: So I mean, it's effectively no guns.

LOTT: Right. I understand. I'm not trying to justify the Justice Department opinion on this and --

GLENN: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. This is the Bush Justice Department.

LOTT: Right. There's been so much strangeness that's going on here. I don't know if you know this but Vice President Cheney signed a brief essentially opposing the Bush Justice Department's position on this. He came out and said not only is this an individual right but it should be treated just as the rest of the Bill of Rights are treated and this is the first time in American history that a sitting vice president has signed an amicus brief and not only has he signed an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, he's come out against the Justice Department position on it. And last week there was a column by Robert Novak which I guess if it's true is quite remarkable because he was quoting people in the Bush administration saying that the solicitor general had taken a position that Bush didn't agree with but rather than going and telling the solicitor general to withdraw his brief on that, Bush had essentially signaled to Cheney to put in his own brief to indicate that the executive branch was not of one voice agreeing with what the Justice Department was going to be arguing yesterday.

GLENN: So how do you think this is going to come out, John?

LOTT: I think they are going to say it's an individual right and I think by at least a 6-3 vote but I have no clue where they're going to draw the line in terms of saying with standard what weight should be given to the Second Amendment compared to the rest of the Bill of Rights. There was enough doubt, Justice Roberts didn't even want to deal with that issue and there were some questions among some of the others. So on that who knows what's going through their mind right now.

GLENN: So this could actually, this could in one way be a win that it is an individual right but then at the same time we could lose because they could say, "And the Government can regulate it any way they want."

LOTT: Right. That's a possibility.

GLENN: That's fantastic. And what does it mean, John, to New York and Chicago if they just come out and say, no, the DC gun ban is wrong, you can't do that? Does that mean that --

LOTT: Well, there would be a few other cases. All this is would be a very narrow decision that said, look, having a gun ban is going too far. Where we're going to draw the line after that, you are going to have to have other cases to decide and my guess is some place like Chicago there would be a suit filed very quickly afterwards saying that their ban, which is almost as restrictive as DC's, is also unconstitutional.

GLENN: John, can you explain where the turn came and why we are looking at -- why our Supreme Court is looking at -- instead of the words of the founding fathers, instead of the intent of the founding fathers -- I mean, jeez, we'll look for the intent of a hanging chad voter but we won't look for the intent of the founding fathers, which is very clear.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why we now look at evolutionary law, why we now look at the law and say, well, let's look at this last case and this last case. Why don't they look at what the founding fathers said and believed because it was clear.

LOTT: I agree with you. As you say, look at the First Amendment, says congress shall make no law. What would they have had to have written if they really meant that? Say congress will never, ever make any law with respect to this? But I think what's happened is that people like power and so if the Supreme Court were just to go and say, well, this is what the First Amendment means; if you want it to be something different, then amend the Constitution. Or with regard to the Second Amendment it seems pretty clear to me, also, then there wouldn't be these types of cases. What's happened is I think judges and justices like to be policy makers and so they like to introduce grayness in things and so rather than just taking absolute standards, which is what the Constitution tried to set up, they set up these balancing tests where you have to go in and go and argue: Well, I think there are good reasons that maybe we should get around the words that are in the Constitution and then the justices have, you know, policy information, data and empirical evidence that they can go in and weight the different classing benefits of changing these different things. I mean, it's just a natural evolution. In some sense we're lucky that it took 160 years or so before we began to see this change in our courts because truly the temptation was there earlier to go and get power that would have been -- belonged to other branches of government earlier.

GLENN: One last question. I don't know if you are a betting man at all. Odds that we significantly hurt the right to own and carry a gun in this country with this decision.

LOTT: I think -- I'm optimistic on this. I think that we'll win with regard to individual right clearly, and I'm pretty optimistic, though, you know -- I don't know. I would say 60% or something that we'll do well in terms of the standard.

GLENN: All right. John, thanks. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. If you want to get down to the facts of guns, which nobody wants to do, read that book. It's tremendous. John, thanks a lot for your time.

LOTT: Thank you very much.

Nearly two years after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, the mystery of who planted two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee offices remains unsolved. Thankfully, the bombs were found and disabled before they could cause any harm, but with their potential for devastating consequences — not to mention the massive investigations into all things relating to Jan.6 — why does it seem like this story has practically fallen off the face of the earth?

No one in the corporate media has even tried to look into it, and the government's narrative that the bombs were meant to be a diversion for the Capitol riot doesn't make sense when you look at the timeline of events.

So, on this week's episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck broke down the timeline of events that led up to the discovery of the bombs and how the facts appear to point toward one sinister conclusion:

  • Security footage reportedly shows that the two pipe bombs were planted in front of the DNC and RNC the day before the riot.
  • Neither bomb was concealed.
  • Then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris entered the DNC headquarters at approximately 11: 30 am on January 6.
  • At approximately 12:40 pm on January 6, the first pipe bomb was discovered sitting in plain sight outside the DNC headquarters, raising questions as to why the incoming vice president didn't have better security.
  • The pipe bomb had a one-hour kitchen timer that had apparently stopped with 20 minutes left on the timer. (Remember, the bombs were planted on January 5.)
  • The Secret Service reportedly erased their communications from January 5t and January 6 by "accident."

"It doesn't really hit you unless you look at it as a timeline, and then you're like, 'wait a minute that doesn't seem right.' The unsolved mystery of the pipe bomb has been used by the government to show that January 6 riot was part of a larger coordinated attack ... that the bombs were a diversion to get the Capitol police away from the Capitol," Glenn explained.

"But the bomb had a one-hour timer and it was planted at 8 p.m. the night before. So the bomb would have to go off the night before at about 9 p.m. on January 5. How's that a diversion? It's not physically even possible."

Watch the video clip below to hear more or find the full episode of "Unsolved Mysteries: 7 Deep-State SECRETS Biden Wants Buried" here.


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.

The Biden administration has weaponized the federal government against the American people. But officials have hidden most of their attacks behind a secretive and cavernous bureaucracy.

There are so many unsolved mysteries that Joe Biden and the Democrats not only refuse to answer, but in some cases appear as though they are ACTIVELY trying to cover up. Like what happened on January 6? Who is Ray Epps? Who planted the pipe bombs? What’s in Biden’s executive order on elections? What happened to the SCOTUS Dobbs leaker? What’s the COVID origin story? What’s happening with crypto, FTX, and the Central Bank Digital Currency?

These are just a few of the unsolved mysteries that we need to DEMAND answers on. On his Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck outlines a chalkboard that will leave you convinced the DOJ and FBI are LYING to the American people. The more secrets the Deep State holds, the more its power over us grows.

Watch the full episode of "Glenn TV" below:

Unsolved Mysteries: 7 Deep-State SECRETS Biden Wants Buried | Glenn TV | Ep 238

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.

'I NEVER thought I'd talk about this': Was Glenn Beck's CHILLING dream actually a WARNING?

(Left) Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images/(Right) Video screenshot

On the radio program this week, Glenn Beck decided to share a very unusual, extremely vivid dream he had ten years ago — a dream he thought he'd never talk about on the air until he began to see it as a warning that we should all know about.

"I never ever thought I would talk about this on the air, but I feel compelled to tell you that seasons have changed again, and it is becoming more and more apparent. You need to know what you're dealing with," Glenn began.

"If you are a long-time listener of this program, you know that one of the reasons I left New York ... was that I had a medical condition. Part of it was brought on by no REM sleep for about 10 years ... and for 10 years, I never had a dream," he explained. "However, during this period I had what could be described as a dream. I do not believe it was."

"In this 'dream' ... I am in a hallway of the White House. And I'm walking into a big room where there's a bunch of cubicles, and people look up like, 'who's walking in?' There are people behind me, but I don't know who they are yet. I just know I'm being pushed forward by them," Glenn continued. "I realize that everybody in the White House is terrified of who's ever behind me ... I glance back and I see people that are in uniforms that I've never seen before. I have seen them since, but that will be for some other time...."

"So, these guys in the uniforms are in the hallway, and one guy says, 'him, him, and him, take them out' ... and I'm the only one still sitting at the table. They go out ... then I hear three gunshots and they say, 'yeah, that happened pretty quickly for them. However, you, we're going to get to know ... because you really have no idea who you're dealing with.' And that's when one of them ... ripped off his face and he was Satan. Or, he was a demon, okay? Horrifying. Then I wake up."

Glenn went on to explain that, while the dream was so vivid and disturbing that he thought about it almost daily for well over a year, it was what happened next — during a discussion with a prominent religious leader — that really hinted his "dream" might actually have been a vision of the future and a warning.

"I will never forget it, and I will never dismiss it," Glenn said of what he learned. "I'm sharing it with you today because you must not dismiss what you're dealing with. We are not in a battle [of] politics ... our whole culture has become evil."

"You have to get to a point where you are going to choose a side. There will be no one left on the benches, and if you think you can sit it out you will end up on the wrong side. I urge you to know who you serve. This is a different time in human experience. This is not normal. None of this is normal," he warned.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

'The Fedcoin is HERE': Glenn Beck reveals what the Fed was up to while YOU weren’t watching

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

While Americans were preparing for Thanksgiving last Wednesday afternoon, the Federal Reserve moved forward with its "Central Bank Digital Currency" program, and that wasn't the only controversial policy that was rolled out while you weren’t watching.

On the radio program, Glenn Beck reviewed the latest financial stories you may have missed over the holiday weekend, including how Biden's pause on student loan payments may be extended again and yet another sketchy Hunter Biden investment.

"You might have missed what happened Wednesday afternoon at the Fed," Glenn began. "They started their CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency. Yes, the Fedcoin is here. Now they rolled it out on Wednesday — I mean, that was the only day they could do it, you know, because they've been denying that any of this stuff was happening. But they could only get it [launched] when no one was paying attention. So they rolled it out, and it's in its beta test now."

"By the way, India just rolled out its retail pilot program for digital rupees as well. But don't worry," he continued. "Maybe we should start having the conversation of, 'Gosh, this looks like the mark of the beast.' I mean, doesn't it? But surely it's not. Of course not. Not from the U.S. government. They never do anything underhanded or evil. Never."

Watch the video clip below. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.