Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Media

Rick Santorum Slams ‘Pointing to the Gun Instead of Pointing to Society’ on ABC Panel

Jan. 20, 2013 9:20pm Mytheos Holt

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) took on the issue of gun violence on ABC’s “This Week” panel today, slamming the idea that guns are the reason why violence is increasing.

“50 years ago, you could go on a catalog and buy a gun. There were no restrictions on gun ownership, there were no restrictions on magazines, there were no restrictions on anything, and we had a lot less violence in society than we do today,” Santorum said. “Why do you need to protect Hollywood putting films in front of us that glorify [violence]?”

Crosstalk ensued with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm around this point, during which Granholm pressed Santorum repeatedly on why an American citizen might “need” particular forms of ammunition, or guns. Santorum responded that criminals might have these weapons, even if civilians didn’t.

Watch the segment below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (145)

sURFNmADNESS
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 11:45pm
Ah but Rick, you missed the opportunity again.. 50 years ago we would have drug any public official admitting to being a Communist in front of a congressional hearing and possibly deported them for being Anti American. Now, we just think they are joking around and elect them into office where he continues to surround himself with like minded individuals. Meantime the masses are blinded by his skin color instead of paying attention to the damage he has inflicted in the first 4 years which he is not the least bit sorry for not doing better. He actually thinks he has done great thanks to the media spin.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
afleetcommand
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 11:25am
I think that reporter who askes effectively why we need to be able to defend ourselves needs to have a chat with Laura Logan…maybe live a week in inner city Chicago with a sign “no guns allowed here”. Bottom line is when self defense becomes a priority, there is no limit to the definition of what you need..you have to survive. What a rediculous rationalisation..we are going into economic crisis, the “gang” & criminal population will get and use what every they please reguardless of what blondie on the panal says..those elitest types will hire armed guards..what about the people who are being milked to pay for all this?? We can’t defend our selves on our terms? Wake up folks! It didn’t end well for those followed the Pied Piper.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jeffile
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 11:24am
The tactics never change. Our society, morality and decency are slowly being whittled away once the fascists get their foot in the door. Playboy was introduced the (I believe) about 1960 and was considered extremely risqué. Could you imagine someone attempting to introduce a 3X movie at that time, especially when access to children was so easy? No, it’s foot in the door and then continue pushing the border. The same applies to homosexuals. At first, on TV, they were depicted as comical characters, slowly evolving to comical but receiving sympathy to what appears on the screen today. Private gun restrictions will continue to become more restrictive and will eventually be either banned or requirements so over whelming that ownership will be truly taxing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Melvin Spittle
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:50am
I disagree with all of Cornel Wests past statements with the exception of one in which he states guns are not the root cause of violence and that gun violence is but the symptom of a sick society.

Where we differ is how we became a sick society and what to do about it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ibanrfknm
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:39am
Matthew 12:29
Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house

First disarm the people.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Uechi
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:17am
Hey Third Archon/ fool how do you know whether fetuses are unaware? Fetuses have been shown to react to loud noises, to suck their thumbs and their is evdience they learn in the womb, etc. What gives you certainty that they are unaware? The murder of babies unborn or born is murder. I fail to see how killing an unborn baby is ok if they are unaware. You sir or madam are a callus unfeeling moron and are one of millions of reasons why this county is in the crapper. No respect for life.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:41am
  Anyone who thinks shooting a 6 year old to death is the same as an abortion is clearly deranged.
  Not worth spit.
  
  Report this comment
tradcatholicgirl
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 7:04am
I gave up reading Third Archon’s replies halfway down page one. How can you argue with a person who INSISTS that a baby in the womb is “unaware” and cannot feel pain?

How do you know that, Third Archon? What proof do you have for your asssertion?

Unfortunately, the validity of your argument is being destroyed by the improvements in ultrasound and other technologies that show babies in the womb responding with pleasure and pain to all kinds of stimuli.

If you base your entire argument on an assumption that has already been disproved, it makes for boring reading.

And the real point that people have been trying to make you understand is that aborted babies are people who have been murdered, whether you believe they “felt” it, or not.

Find a new basis for your argument.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PlanetReality
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 6:53am
And how liberal is that??????
Of course the blame game and who suffers??? not the criminals, not the free loaders, not the brainless but the law abiding!!!
Once again what this country was fought and built upon!!!
WE THE PEOPLE!!!
the right to limit thew gov, not the right of the gov to limit the people!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
paulsfam4
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 6:36am
when they took God! out of our class rooms he was replaced by bullets!.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Hammernsickle
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 6:02am
ARCHON, the only thing your lectures have proven is that you’ve got an oversized vocabulary. You may be intelligent, but that doesn’t make you smart. If you want people to see your point of view, you need to use less words. Your comments read like some kind of socialist textbook. Oh! Maybe you’re just copying verbatim what the books reads! Then again, maybe you’re just brainwashed.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:29am
@Third Archie: Who says Rocks don’t have a stream of conscience? The Native Americans for tens of thousands of years called them Stone People. The particular rock called “flint” makes fire. Rocks have been used to heal people for centuries. Avalanches land on people all the time as a sign of judgement. A human being en utero has no stream of conscience? Where did you hear that? At one of the many abortion clinics you took one of your many girlfriends? Which pill did you swallow there the Blue one or the Red one? How are all your alien and comic book friends today? How many little “non conscience” pieces of tissue have you ended? How many human heartbeats have you stopped? Because at 3 months en utero there is a human heartbeat and that is regulated by a brain and so how does that brain which regulates a human heartbeat NOt have a stream of conscience exactly? Oh. Do tell us. Regale us with just how that works wouldja? Because we are all just waiting so eagerly for you to answer this one oh mighty know-it -all! Oh do instruct us. We are all so very dumb. And could you re-spell all the words above for us? And give us dictionary definitions? Cause you are just so much like, like, so much more, like, just, so much more, knowledge, like, we are all just not up to your level, cause, um, we are , just , like a bunch of stupid people, like, compared to how so smart your are and we are, just, like, so , stupid, and, like, uh, ……..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:35am
  “Who says Rocks don’t have a stream of conscience…fire.”
  I, and science, says rocks don’t have streams of conscious experience. And I am well aware of the animist beliefs of Native Americans–belief does not make reality. Insofar as we are currently best able to tell on the credible evidence that is available, in order to have a stream of conscious experience a CNS (or its physical equivalent) is necessary.
  “Rocks…centuries.”
  No, rocks have been used in ceremonies that people have THOUGHT healed people–they recovered for other physical causal reasons.
  “Avalanches land on people all the time as a sign of judgement.”
  No, avalanches land on people because of gravity. It is a tragic coincidence that people happen to be under them when it happens.
  “A human…today?”
  A fetus may be a human, but it is not yet a being until it has a stream of consciousness, which it can only have with a physical system sufficient to support it–in its case a CNS. A fetus eventually has one of these, probably sufficiently developed to have A stream of consciousness, but it does not BEGIN with one, or have one for the better part of gestation.
  “How…stopped?”
  Tissue? Plenty–every time I cut my ****. Heartbeats? None–never caused a need for an abortion yet.
  “Because…wouldja?”
  The heartbeat is an autonomic (that means autonomic) response–it requires no stream of consciousness to occur, being no more complicated than a pump connected to a computerized timer.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:52am
  In the parentheses following the first instance of the word “autonomic” the second “autonomic” should have been “automatic.”
  
  Report this comment
Arizona Luke
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:50am
AMEN Sen Santorum! Keep fighting brother.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hippocritic-us
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:47am
@Anchon your comparison between rocks and humans is probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Rocks are neither living beings nor do they have the potential to develop into fully self-sustaining life forms, and do not contain human DNA. Just thought I’d point that out to you since you seem to be mixing up your biology and geology just a little bit.

The difference between the comatose person and the person in the womb is that one has suffered trauma and is likely at the end of life and without direct intervention would surely die while the other is at the beginning of life and without direct intervention would continue to grow and develop.

I also take issue with your extremes on the gun issue. At one end you take away freedom to own guns by calling for a universal ban. At the other end you take away freedom to not own a gun by requiring every abled body to own and be proficient with one. A national policy doesn’t take into account the differences between states. What’s good for California isn’t necessarily good for North Dakota. Hence the 10th amendment.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:05am
  @HIPPO
  “your comparison between rocks and humans is probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.”
  Then you’ve understood the point. Rocks lack what makes humans worthy of moral consideration–a stream of conscious experience (i.e. what I use “awareness” as shorthand for). Fetuses, like rocks, lack this too for the better part of their gestation. Therefore, for the better part of the gestation, they are not persons and cannot have rights. The fact that they MAY become persons makes no difference–the same could be said of sperm and ova, but they are not, and cannot meaningfully be, given rights.
  
  “The difference…grow and develop.”
  What they MIGHT be makes no difference, otherwise none of us would have rights because we will all die. Whether or not an entity (a fetus or a person in a coma) is a “person” for moral purposes only hinges on whether or not they have a stream of conscious experience.
  
  “I also take issue with your extremes on the gun issue…Hence the 10th amendment.”
  A national policy is sometimes beneficial and/or necessary–were that not the case, we wouldn’t have a national government at all. When it comes to a federal right like the Second, if we are to meaningfully exercise it as citizens, then there needs to be a common and easily understood by the citizens standard for that right and its protection. Moreover, having a policy of private gun ownership as a national right requires equitable access and competence.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:30am
  I realize that I was a little ambiguous (I was running out of space), but I did not mean to imply people should be FORCED to have a gun. What I meant was that the government should be required (a) to provide a single firearm (probably a semiautomatic firearm) to each able-bodied adult requesting it (possibly non-able-bodied as well, although depending upon what is classified as “able-bodied” if they could not actually USE the firearm then the considerations are different because the right is not serving the same purposes for them as for most people to which it is ascribed) if they could not afford it, and (b) that anyone who sought ownership of firearms would be required to, and provided with free of cost to them, have training in important skills for someone owning a firearm including proper maintenance, assembly and disassembly, and basic safety and marksmanship. People should obviously be able to waive most rights to which they are entitled at their discretion.
  
  The reason for this is that if we ARE to have a policy of widespread gun ownership then we must (1) Ensure that people are competent to safely own guns; (2) Ensure that who has access to the power guns provide is not based upon wealth but rather their status as citizens; and (3) Ensure the policy serves its purposes by ensuring each citizen is minimally EFFECTIVE with their firearms.
  
  The status quo policy fulfills NEITHER the objectives of gun advocates, NOR the those of gun opponents.
  
  Report this comment
TreeTrimmerJim
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:37am
Which bother you the most the messenger or the message?

Many of the commenters seem fixated on the messenger. Reasoning if the messenger is faulty by default the information, although factual, is faulty.

Where did you learn that ability to critically think? Fact don’t have an agenda.

Another victim of a government funded mandatory attendance public education.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TreeTrimmerJim
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:21am
I bought my first gun for $5 shot my first deer with it two years later at the age of 10.

We had customers in our family store who wore holsters with pistols while they shopped.

Parents sent notes saying it was OK for their son, usually, to by a box of shells, usually 22 caliber.

Never heard of anyone shooting someone else. Since then we have lost our independent school district and the picture of George Washington that was in every classroom. In replace no more Christmas plays, no more prayers, no more Bibles in schools.

The switch came with free milk in the morning.

Maybe we just had better children then being raised by better parents being taught by better teachers. We didn’t bars or locks on the school doors either.

We must have been backwards people. In our town very few people locked their homes or took the keys out of the ignition.

Terrible time to grow up.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodyee
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:10am
@ Archon and whom it may concern –

FK statistics. Liars figure. My Rights are irrefutably non-negotiable. Why I might need or not need something is none of your business, anymore than it is mine to decide you only need 100 cubic feet of air to breath per day, a two-door pedal-pusher over a 4-door sedan or 200square feet of space to reside in.

I find more interest in the fact that we’re being told by countries around the world NOT to surrender our rights, not that I’d give a dang what they thought about my rights – it’s just curious that Pravda and the Australians would be vocal about opposing Gaybama – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA

and here – http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Stupid ignorant self-defeating morons are not to be suffered. Best to leave them alone to wallow in their ignorance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:47am
  @WOOD
  Except your simplistic absolutist conception of rights is not at all accurate to the way in which they function in reality.
  (1) The delineation of rights between individuals actually DOES matter (if it DIDN’T, i.e. if your rights made no difference to your relations to others, you wouldn’t value them as they’d serve no purpose). It effects what they can and cannot do legally with respect to you, and what you can, and cannot, do legally effects both your welfare and the welfare of everyone else.
  (2) Rights not only change with the law and legal interpretation, but also with the availability of remedy. If there is no power to back up a remedy for the right (i.e. if you cannot shoot an aggressor, or if the courts will not grant you remuneration when you are illegally deprived of property) then there IS no right de facto in that instance.
  (3) As such, the distribution of rights is wholly a human convention, is not fixed (look at history), and is done for the individual and collective benefits from the distribution.
  
  “I find more…opposing Gaybama”
  I don’t care, and it is wholly irrelevant, what the state-controlled news of a country further to the Right than America (i.e. Russia) has to say about our gun policy. Nor are the views of a Rightist minority of Australians (and I say “minority” because there views are by far at odds with the policies of their state which has stricter gun controls than the U.S.).
  
  Report this comment
honeydijon13
Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:00am
I only agree with one statement Rick Santorum
ever made: “Smart people don’t become Republicans.”

And the Republican audience applauded.
Double touche.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:05am
  Except intelligence has no relation to being educated (or in your case, indoctrinated).
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 8:39am
  You’re on to something there MUSTARD.
  “Smart People Don’t Become Republican”.
  Smart People wise up to the fact that the
  Republican Party is not that Different from the
  Democrat Party.
  
  Smart People become Independents ,Conservatives,
  and Libertarians.
  Much Like the Founding Fathers were.
  but even then there were Big Government Politicians.
  and Small Government Politicians.
  
  Report this comment
South Philly Boy
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:11pm
He Dropped the Ball when he was in office… BUT WILL NOT ANYMORE

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:29pm
It’s a hoax to take our guns and if you haven’t seen the video proof on you tube you’re missing what has happened. We have been so set up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:44am
  You are a sad sick individual
  As most who idolize Beck are.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.