Media

Limbaugh: ‘Blaming Guns for Murder Is Like Blaming Forks for Obesity’

Radio host Rush Limbaugh obviously isn’t one for holding back his political opinions. With perspectives raging in the days following the Aurora, Colorado, shooting rampage, the popular conservative commentator is speaking out about gun control and proposals to crack down on weapons.

(Related: Priest Pushes for More Gun Control by Calling It a ‘Religious Issue’ Like ‘Abortion, Euthanasia or the Death Penalty’)

During his show today, Limbaugh said that he tries to shy away from politicizing tragedies like the one that unfolded in Aurora. However, he delved into some of the issues surrounding gun control as well as the negativity that is so often prevalent in American media and culture.

“It’s undeniable that our culture is sending messages — a lot of terrible messages — to really weak, I don’t want to say dumb — maybe mentally impaired people,” he said. “Most people are able to handle it, compartmentalize it…it’s over there, it’s self-contained and it‘s not real and other people aren’t able to make those distinctions.”

Rush Limbaugh Says Blaming Guns for Aurora Tragedy Is Like Blaming Forks for Obesity

Obviously, in the case of the Aurora suspect, James Holmes, receiving these messages and processing them may have been problematic. Then, Limbaugh moved on to discussing guns and the strict laws that followed in the wake of the Columbine massacre that unfolded in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999. The radio host lambasted liberals for trying to politicize the latest tragedy.

“They use this crisis to call for more gun control even though Colorado…already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation,” he proclaimed. “Criminals and lunatics never have any problems breaking the law. They never have any problems finding guns or explosives. The laws only stop other people from being able to defend themselves. Law only stops the law-abiding by definition.”

Next, Limbaugh perfectly summarized his arguments against blaming guns for Holmes’ actions.

“Blaming guns for murder is like blaming forks for obesity. Someone misused a gun therefore no one’s allowed to have one,” he said. “This guy would have found ways to do what he did in that theater whether he could have gotten guns or not.”

Watch Limbaugh’s complete commentary, below:

Comments (130)

1 2
  • schroeder123
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:50pm

    It’s your fault theater owners !

    for not allowing Concealed weapons in theater. This would have never been as bad.

    Report Post » schroeder123  
    • rickc34
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:00pm

      Criminals kill, they just happen to use a gun as a tool of choice, this guy planned this out to every detail. He is not crazy but he will try and use insanity to keep from getting the death penalty . Lock him up with Charles Manson , let them be cell mates , let us see who survives .

      Report Post »  
    • NOT A CRAZY
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:01pm

      Unfortunately, there are not enough people who do carry. Out of the people who do there are not enough people who ignore the anti-gun policies. What would they have done if someone had a concealed weapon? Kick them out? Die or get kicked out. Choices, choices. If it is a truely concealed weapon they will not know anyway.

      Report Post » NOT A CRAZY  
    • JRook
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:22pm

      Can always depend on Rush to change the questions, change the context and avoid the obvious fact. If the individual was not able to purchase an assault weapon that held so many rounds of ammunition he would not been able to kill as many people as fast. Now you could claim he could have used a bomb, he could have used deadly gas and perhaps a number of other things. But the fact remains he was able to acquire 4 guns and a lot of ammunition in a matter of months legally. Reasonable controls over what guns can and cannot be purchased is more rational than Rush could ever understand. And such controls would not change 2nd. amendment rights.

      Report Post »  
    • BadDog-NoBiscuit
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:32pm

      @NOT A CRAZY: It is certainly a personal choice to carry when “NO GUNS ALLOWED” signs are posted – I would rather carry and be safe than not and be sorry…

      Report Post » BadDog-NoBiscuit  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:34pm

      The blood is on the hands of HOLLYWOOD……..

      Report Post »  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:38pm

      It’s like blaming the rich for poverty………..

      Report Post »  
    • jhrusky
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:52pm

      @ jrook

      “Reasonable controls over what guns can and cannot be purchased is more rational than Rush could ever understand.”

      Really? So, if he didn’t have an AK47, people would have lived? Do you really believe that? And, what makes you think he wouldn’t have purchased an AK47 in the underground if that was his choice of a weapon? I know where I can pretty much get anything I want within a few days, including fully-auto military-style rifles … all I gotta do is come up with the bucks.

      Don’t tell me about how the scary looking gun is the culprit. If someone wants to kill a lot of people, they will kill a lot of people. Criminals don‘t decide to not do crimes because they’re illegal or it’s inconvenient.

      Report Post » jhrusky  
    • Meyvn
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:53pm

      @JRook: He could steal one, get one on the black market, have something made, or make one himself. Wise up fool.

      Report Post » Meyvn  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:01pm

      The answer to your question JROOK is YES. Holmes would have been able to kill as many or more people even without the guns in his possession. He had a aparment full of explosive devices, do you really think having no guns was going to stop him? This is why I call you an idiot.
      Now you answer a question JROOK..do you think a well placed shot to the head or knee from someone who had a gun in the theatre might have dropped Holmes and saved lives? The answer again is YES. This is why I call you an idiot JROOK.

      Report Post »  
    • GrayPanther
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:10pm

      YES! And you should have an electronic check on exit doors. Think of this criminal act AND people sneaking in their friends!

      Report Post » GrayPanther  
    • kpeters59
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:37pm

      I do not understand why an alarm wasn’t triggered when the EXIT door was opened during the screening. Seems to me it should have required immediate attention.

      -KP

      Report Post »  
    • mjmaverick
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 8:27am

      @JROOK

      Yes, it would infringe on the 2nd amendment. You are minimizing the intent of the amendment. It isn’t about just allowing citizens to own firearms. The intent is to allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of a GOVERNMENT. Last time I looked at the weapons used by our military they were using just a few things more powerful than an AR15. Applying the 2nd amendment correctly I should be able to walk into a weapons shop and buy a full auto weapon, a tank or a shoulder fired rocket. Basically, if we as citizens are to be capable of defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, by the intention of the 2nd amendment, I as a U.S. citizen should be able to possess any weapon my government might use in the unconstitutional revocation of my liberty. A hunting rifle does meet those qualifications.

      I can hear the liberal, weenie argument already. That would be too dangerous. Yup. Freedom is dangerous……to those who hate it. The founders did not frame the Constitution as the beginning of a utopia.

      Report Post » mjmaverick  
    • TexasHunter
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:27pm

      LETS SEE !!! We have tons of immigration laws! Yet we still have an immigration as a MAJOR PROBLEM! I don’t have a license to carry me a concealed immigrant around. More laws are not going to do anything!! Enforce the ones WE have NOW !

      Report Post » TexasHunter  
    • swamp_donkey
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 4:36pm

      well if anyone should be an authority on obesity its laimbaugh

      Report Post »  
  • rfycom
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:46pm

    So Rush tries to shy away from it. He makes money off these things. He’s laughing all the way to the bank with these things

    Report Post »  
    • NOT A CRAZY
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:52pm

      What?

      Report Post » NOT A CRAZY  
    • myway
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:59pm

      Put the foil hat back on and go out side in the sun. You will shine!

      Report Post » myway  
    • BadDog-NoBiscuit
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:49pm

      You obviously don’t understand the situation – go back to sleep… ;)

      Report Post » BadDog-NoBiscuit  
    • Wolfgang the Gray
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:49pm

      Please explain to me just how Rush Limbaugh made money from a guy shooting moviegoers in Colorado. If you say he is paid to talk about it, that is incorrect. He has a show that he talks on every day and it would be a different subject he would be paid for doing so he doesn’t get paid more for talking about this shooting.

      Report Post » Wolfgang the Gray  
  • schroeder123
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:43pm

    If Everyone was, required to train and know firearms. There would be no problem. Crazies with bad ideas would be eliminated in no time.

    Report Post » schroeder123  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:41pm

    Rush is correct. Guns are tools. They help protect us from criminals and, if the time comes, from our government. Criminals and the mentally insane kill people. The fact that this maniac decided he was the ‘Joker’ and began shooting does not mean that 40 million other gun owners (probablyl more than that) do the same. We have about 10 deaths per 100,000 people through gun shots. The great majority of those killed are in ghetto shoot outs. This “joker” incident is a rare event. I am tired of this government and it’s media blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of gang-bangers and loons.
    Remember…do not trust a government nor an official that does not trust you with a gun.

    Report Post »  
  • bikerdogred1
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:24pm

    I,blame the movie,the actors and everyone involve,they want credit when a movie is goods and come up with rewards for them selfs,how about we come up with the blame for them.

    Report Post »  
    • cessna152
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:48pm

      Citizens killing citizens as sad as it may be ain’t nothing compared to how many innocent people are killed when guns are controlled and confiscated…..over 150 million people in the last 100 have been killed when guns are confiscated. Like I said sad as this may be guns must remain in the hands of the citizens.

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • Jim Hubbard
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:48pm

      That’s actually a good idea. The actors are always the ones against guns. We should require that they stop using guns, bombs and any kind of violence in their movies.

      We should hold them responsible for inciting people who cannot discern reality from the movies to commit these types of crimes. They know that these people (of limited intellectual abilities) see these movies and may take them literally.

      Maybe we should also sue the movie theaters – not only making them use full body scanners on everyone entering, but making them place guards at every exit and making sure that they test every person seeing the movie to make sure that they have the mental capacity to understand that movies are fictional stories and should not be taken literally or acted upon in any manner whatsoever.

      Yeah….that sounds about right….

      Report Post » Jim Hubbard  
    • Verceofreason
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:59pm

      This movie had NOTHING to do with anything.

      Report Post » Verceofreason  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:21pm

    Again Ron Paul was has been on the right side of the 2nd Amendment. Romney and Obama have both publicly stated gun laws and controls keep us “safe”.

    Report Post » Mutiny  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:41pm

      Romney came out against the UN Small Arms Treaty a couple of days ago. He cited sovereignty concerns. I don’t really believe him, but… And yeah, I’d feel much more confident about all of our rights with Ron Paul in charge. Who knows when Romney’s going to flip.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:03pm

      Well Romney has said many times he is for gun controls. Of course he came out against it, he has to for political reasons. I believe his gun control crap as much as I believe his stance on abortion. Those two issues will not play a factor on him choosing a SCJ.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:08pm

      Yeah I know, bud.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:05pm

      Mutiny, remember those anoying Red Sox fans crying about Bill Buckner 20 years after they lost the Series? You’re sounding like one of them.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • DeOppressoLiber
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:19pm

    A great article that explains how bad gun control really is. Remember Gun Free Zone are Hunting Preserves for Psychopaths.

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-most-pro-gun-low-crime-city-in-the-united-states/

    Please some can some enlightened Progressive from the center of the universe’ New York, explain the difference in murder rates.

    Report Post »  
  • Spokane Armory
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:18pm

    Stay free America!
    http://www.spokanearmory.com

    Report Post » Spokane Armory  
  • GeoInSD
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:17pm

    The accused shooter is said to have booby trapped his apartment with explosives. Do you think that guy wouldn’t have found ways to kill if firearms were illegal to own? Marijuana is illegal most places too but that doesn’t seem to stop people from getting it.

    It is said that burglars and home invaders are most afraid of the homeowner being armed. I read last week that 47% of households are armed. If guns are banned, burglars and home invaders will rejoice.

    Report Post »  
    • RossPoldark
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:11pm

      Remember the nut in Japan in 1995 who thought he was some sort of Messiah, and he made Saracin, or Racin, and he and some of his cult followers detonated some racin bombs in the subway. At least 14 people died from the poison, and many others were severly injured. Racin can be made from the oil of a castor plant. It is amazing what nuts can find on the internet to kill innocent people.

      Report Post »  
    • ENIGMA28724
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:40pm

      That is exactly what happened in Great Britain when private ownership of firearms was banned. The criminals actually began breaking in knowing the residents were home and unable to defend themselves. And our thugs are no different.

      Report Post »  
  • scrapadapolis
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:16pm

    I couldn’t agree more..

    Report Post » scrapadapolis  
    • RGFROMTEXAS
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:33pm

      “Blaming guns for murder is like blaming forks for obesity”

      Then why is everyone blaming the ATF for the death of Brian Terry ?? According to Limbaugh, whoever supplied the gun is not to blame. Just the shooter !!

      Report Post »  
    • Redwood Elf
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:43pm

      RGFROMTEXAS – Nice Straw man, but that’s NOT what Limbaugh said.

      He said blaming GUNS (Not gun SUPPLIERS) – The US Federal government KNOWINGLY helped mexican drug cartels get their hands on illegally sold weapons. That is, in fact, a crime.

      If you can’t see the difference, there’s nothing I can do for you. There’s no cure for “Stupid”

      Report Post » Redwood Elf  
    • 1SSF
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:53pm

      @TEXAS – Goes to “intent”. Liberals blame the gun instead of the trigger puller. Example: Was it the 757/767 that flew into the towers and killed 3,000 people? Or was it the pilot terrorists? If liberals use the same reasoning that they use with guns, it was the aircraft’s fault.

      RE: Fast and Furious – Holder and/or Obama (or both) “allegedly” channeled firearms across the border with hostile intent to cause bodily hard and/or injury and to generate anti-gun sentiments. At least 400 casualties have been sustained using Fast and Furious firearms.

      That’s the difference.

      Report Post » 1SSF  
    • Bigrod58
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:55pm

      RGfromTexas – I hope that your online name is misleading and that you, in fact, are not from Texas. Perhaps your from Austin, that would explain a lot. Stay awake now, in the ATF case the Government, our Government, was providing free guns to known outlaws for the purpose of killing people, including Americans and unfortunately our law enforcement officers. In the Limbaugh example, we are law abiding citizens, who have undergone a background check before we can PURCHASE our own guns. And yes, some of the people with a background check have intent to use for nefarious purposes. Perhaps they did not get the message that if their intent was to actually kill innocent people that the ATF is giving them away for free.

      Report Post »  
  • challenger101
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:15pm

    We need to get the current monkey out of the white house.

    Report Post »  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:28pm

      Please name some nation changing differences between Obama and Romney. I want real issues that will change the direction our country is going in.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:35pm

      mutiny-
      not enough time,ink, or paper to answer your ques. if ur really not sure, my words cant help u

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:43pm

      @john

      I am not talking about who ate a dog, who lived where, who was a bully, who supports gays, who was in some church for x amount of years, polygamy, none of that crap. I want real nation changing issues.

      Your response leads me to believe you cannot do it.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • myway
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:05pm

      @ Mutany

      I can tell you the difference obama lives “the dreams FROM his father”. Go see “2016 Love or Hate Obama” if your mother will let you go. In fact take her along!

      Report Post » myway  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:24pm

      cmon mutiny, u must be smarter than that,
      following your cue- put politics aside-
      now look at the miscreants obama surrounds himself with, they who shape his opinions-again, not enough paper. (Rev wright, Holder, carney, Hollywood, msn, aol,cnn, pbs, npr, michael moore, , bill maher,
      ad infin, NOT ENOUGH PAPER-u have lost this battle my friend with a dose of common sense ‘Read ’the communist’ by kanggor

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:02pm

      One is a Marxist, the other is a RINO. I don’t like either option any better than you, but they are the only two we have to choose from. Get over it and fight for real Conservatives running for Congress.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • john vincent
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:14pm

    Pretty obvious comment about the fork by Limbaugh-simple but true.
    I would add that the shooter is a ‘criminal.’ If he didnt have guns, his depraved mind would utilize unterior motives:
    perhaps knock out a greyhound bus driver, then send the bus over a cliff, killing 100 people,
    or
    jump on a school bus, drive it through a school zone, killing 400 people
    or,
    pick your own method a madman would use. Guns were not the point, there were signs that this individual was deranged, nobody paid attention. And he was not an example of concealed carry-those of us who are responsible carry for DEFENSIVE MEASURES. This dude was on the offense, get the point?

    Report Post » john vincent  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:44pm

      It took less than a dozen people equipped with knives and box cutters to murder about 3,000 people. The level of creativity and thought psychopaths and killers put into their work would be admirable if not so tragic.

      And if you are ever arrogant enough to think you can outfox them with laws and regulations, they’ll always be more than happy to “rebut” your stupidity.

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
    • buubbytraps
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:42pm

      yeah , sure…
      19 men in a cave shut down norad and the pentagons missile defense systems…

      whatever gets you thru the day.

      Report Post » buubbytraps  
    • 1SSF
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:22pm

      @BUUBBYTRAP – Funny. The 1960-80s NORAD didn’t exist on 9/11/2001. I know. I was there. Nor was there a capability to deter an internal threat. That’s what happens when one has open borders.

      FWIW: 9/11 was possible because Klinton and Justice created laws restricting the CIA and FBI from communicating. Why would he do this, you ask? Because much of Klinton‘s 1996 campaign cash originated from Communist China the FBI and CIA wasn’t allowed to put the pieces together. Hence, many pieces of the 9/11 puzzle was known but neither FBI/CIA was allowed to communicate to put the puzzle together. G.W. Bush knocked down this wall. Holder and Lil Barry dusted off the law and the infamous “Wall” is again in place.

      Report Post » 1SSF  
    • buubbytraps
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 3:06am

      September 11
      9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes
      How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD’s Northeast head-quarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon’s apparent attempt to cover it up.

      http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

      hmm , norad did not exist…..?

      call it what you want…

      Report Post » buubbytraps  
  • Bill Wallace
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:12pm

    I agree with El Rushbo on this.

    3 people currently sit on death row in Colorado. All 3 have come from the Aurora area (as reported on KGMI).

    Instead of looking for the easy answer (blaming guns), maybe we need to look into the culture and society of these areas. A Batman comic showed a similar event happening. Seems like this guy, naming himself the Joker and mimicking a Batman comic, used guns as a tool the same as he used the gas cannister and hair dye.

    Report Post »  
  • Ben__Franklin
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:12pm

    This is all Obama’s fault. If the Federal Gober’ment did not build those roads and infrastructure, this Lunatic could not have drove himself to the Theater! Thanks Obama! We need to outlaw midnight showings at Theaters and dig up any roads that lead to them!

    Report Post »  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:00pm

    He also nailed it when he said… stricter laws are laws that only affect law abiding citizens and never affect the criminals.

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • Unbelievable
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:06pm

      Outlaw guns and only OUTLAWS will have guns!

      Report Post »  
    • Best_Patriot
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:10pm

      well then let’s do away with all laws then! brilliant tea brain!

      Report Post » Best_Patriot  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:19pm

      Typical childish, reactionary lefty blather HORSE’S ARSE. You have no place in an adult discussion.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:22pm

      @Best

      You clearly missed the subtle distinction here. *Stricter* laws create incentives for breaking them, stricter in the sense of prohibiting items.

      Glad to help clear that up for you.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Best_Patriot
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:25pm

      Hey Avengerk, check out OP’s logic and have another go. If laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, then why have laws? Hmm? This is typical of Rush Limpballs’ arguments.

      As for “adult discussion,” that does not exist at The Blaze.

      Report Post » Best_Patriot  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:48pm

      Hey Best, Now just how the hell am I supposed to shoot squirrels without a gun?

      Report Post » justangry  
    • IsThereADifference
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:53pm

      LOL HORSESASS believes his comments would suffice in an adult discussion.

      “well then let’s do away with all laws then! brilliant tea brain” = adult discussion according to BEST…

      “If laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, then why have laws? Hmm? This is typical of Rush Limpballs’ arguments.” = More adult discussion time with BEST PATRIOT

      Where did you learn how to speak so eloquently? OWS?

      Report Post » IsThereADifference  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:56pm

      The reason a law exists is to dissuade people from violating it, then by punishing those who do break it. But alas, that creates a simple, inescapable flaw; the system is inherently reactive and can’t do much when it comes to prevention. This isn’t Minority Report, and I doubt any of us would want that system if it was available.

      So, law exists to punish, but who is there to prevent? The police are rather limited in their resources and personnel and can only do so much to protect the people. The cruel reality is that people must take it upon themselves to protect themselves.

      The argument that restricting the access of weapons to all people will have a disproportionate impact on people who want to defend themselves, rather than those who are already willing to disregard existing law. While the idea of new control laws would increase punishment to those who are caught, what is the percent of criminals who get away with a crime? Also, what would you do to make up for the loss of an average persons ability to defend themselves? Hire more police? Perhaps mandating all clothing be made of Kevlar.

      Therefore, I stand by my theory that further restrictions on gun control would be a foolish endeavor that would not produce the desired results people seem to think they will.

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:57pm

      When you‘re already in a hole HORSE’S ARSE..why do you keep digging?
      The commenter is right, harsher laws only harm the law abiding in the context of guns. Holmes also set up bombs in his apartment. Do you believe that stopping him for having guns would have stopped him for building bombs and using those in the theater instead? Any clown with a PC can find recipes for bombs on the internet, even you. Do you want to over-regulate household chemicals now HORSE’S ARSE? Being the lefty dolt you are..I‘d say you’re considering it aren’t you?
      What if others in the theater were allowed to carry guns HORSE’S ARSE? Think a well placed head or knee shot could have put Holmes down and saved lives?

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:02pm

      Oh good grief….Try this horses arse – criminals will only continue to break whatever laws there may be implemented – that is what makes them criminals. Law abiding folks are not criminals because they don’t break the law.

      Boy genius in CO didn’t obey the gun free zone in place at the theater – there was a law against taking a gun into the building – dude did it any way – so how did that gun law already in place work out? Didn’t prevent a cotten picking thing other than keep law abiding citizens unarmed because they obeyed the sign and left their guns at home or in the car.

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • RossPoldark
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:15pm

      How true. progressives are under the dellusion that gun control, or more of it works, cause look at Europe! Ever heard of the Dunblane massacre in Scotland? There are many examples of the gun control in Europe not working. If I am not mistaken, I believe in Switzerland, a home owner can own one fire arm, and I have not heard of any massacres there. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any to date.

      Report Post »  
    • Verceofreason
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:00am

      Private citizens do no need assault weapons.

      Report Post » Verceofreason  
    • DYNA
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:57am

      @Verceofreason

      If by assault weapons, you mean weapons that are more effective against wicked people, then private citizens do have a need for assault weapons. I imagine muskets were used in the 18th century to assault those that would destroy them. Both in the past and now, citizens need these weapons to protect themselves against any tyranny that would undermine their Godly freedom.

      Report Post »  
    • mjmaverick
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 10:29am

      @Verceofreason

      You are minimizing the intent of the amendment. It isn’t about just allowing citizens to own firearms. The intent is to allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of a GOVERNMENT. Last time I looked at the weapons used by our military they were using just a few things more powerful than an AR15. Applying the 2nd amendment correctly I should be able to walk into a weapons shop and buy a full auto weapon, a tank or a shoulder fired rocket. Basically, if we as citizens are to be capable of defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, by the intention of the 2nd amendment, I as a U.S. citizen should be able to possess any weapon my government might use in the unconstitutional revocation of my liberty. A hunting rifle does meet those qualifications.

      I can hear the liberal, weenie argument already. That would be too dangerous. Yup. Freedom is dangerous……to those who hate it. The founders did not frame the Constitution as the beginning of a utopia.

      Report Post » mjmaverick  
  • ferggie
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:57pm

    Yep and AIDS kill thousands every year I guess we had better outlaw Homosexuality. Planned Parenthood murders 330,000 babies every year, better outlaw PP

    Report Post »  
  • raderby
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:53pm

    amen Maha Rushie.

    Report Post » raderby  
  • JEANNIEMAC
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:53pm

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/
    If Obama signs the treaty, there will be a tremendous backlash from Americans who know this man intends to be dictator.
    It is now common knowledge that the “intellectual elite and world bankers” have been working for years towards a one world government. The last step is the disarming of the populace to destroy all resistance.

    Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:59pm

      Treaties don’t nullify the Constitution

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Unbelievable
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:08pm

      Actually GhostOfJefferson… It DOES overrided our Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:23pm

      Actually, no, treaties don’t override the Constitution. They have the same status as law of the land, but cannot be construed to deny rights contained in the Constitution.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Thighmaster
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:24pm

      The first ten amendments are known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS, maybe our argument is there..

      Report Post » Thighmaster  
  • Corrigenda
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:53pm

    Blaming forks for obesity might obviously be wrong but that is irrelevant in this case and to suggest this is to try and paper over the cracks. The issue isn‘t one of us all blaming ’guns’. The issue is ‘access to guns’. How How can it be possible in any country let alone the USA for an individual in only 60 days to amass 6000 rounds of ammunition, 30 shells filled with gunpowder, containers filled with “incendiary liquids” intended to fuel a fire from the initial explosions, bullets meant to ricochet around the apartment, an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock 0.40-caliber handgun and an additional Glock 0.40-caliber handgun.

    Gun control just has to be on the agenda for the coming Presidential election. The NRA has to come up with plans for control. Just how CAN it be possible in ANY country let alone the USA for an individual in only 60 days to amass 6000 rounds of ammunition, 30 shells filled with gunpowder, containers filled with “incendiary liquids” intended to fuel a fire from the initial explosions, bullets meant to ricochet around the apartment, an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock 0.40-caliber handgun and an additional Glock 0.40-caliber handgun?

    Gun control just has to be on the agenda for the coming Presidential election. The NRA has to come up with plans for control. We need make no change to the 2nd amendment. However just as with all the other rights mentioned in the constitution this one also should be cont

    Report Post »  
    • KickinBack
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:58pm

      I think your record is scratched…

      Report Post » KickinBack  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:02pm

      Spare us the sophistry please.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • DimmuBorgir
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:06pm

      OK I know that sounds like alot of guns and ammo.

      But what if it’s your birthday and you want to have a bunch of friends over to shoot all your firearms. That’s what one of my friends did, he got tons of ammo and told everyone to bring their guns. He didn’t kill anyone or try to take over a small city. He just wanted to have fun on his birthday.

      Report Post » DimmuBorgir  
    • Apologist JD
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:11pm

      I agree. It’s all about access to guns. If more people in that theater had access to legitimate means of self-defense, there would have been far fewer casualties. I think it‘s time for Allen West’s indivdual mandate: every adult non-felon should be required to purchase and carry a firearm to ensure that they can perform their civic duty in situations like these!

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:18pm

      CORRIGENDA…what if some of the theatre goers were armed themselves? Granted Holmes was wearing body armour but a headshot or a knee taken out would have neutralized him and likely spared a lot of harm to people. There were service men in the audience…they’d know how to place a shot. What about the explosives Holmes put together? Do you think he‘d couldn’t have taken some bombs into the theater if he was denied guns? You want to outlaw household chemicals too?

      Report Post »  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:38pm

      So, do you have a plan to deal with the black market? We can outlaw, restrict and everything under the sun to legal ways to obtain weaponry, but all that has accomplished is strengthening the black market. Take for example, handguns. What has happened in areas that severally restrict access to handguns, people simply steal the weapons so that all the tracking mechanisms are now inoperable. They then sell these to dealers who will give them to someone for the right price or the criminal will use the weapons themselves. All the restrictions placed on the weapon are null and void.

      Even if you say “well, only for really dangerous weapons.” 99% of gun crimes are committed with weapons that wouldn’t fit under assault or machine gun categories. Even then, the criminals who are bold enough to use those weapons usually buy them from foreign groups, or from crooked military personnel who are happy to make a few of their guns vanish from the base.

      Gun control laws are mostly a classic example of something happens and people decide that something HAS to be done. What they don’t realize is that sometimes, doing “something” is a lot worse than doing “nothing.” We get emotional, and make dumb decisions that make dumber laws and we feel good about dealing with the problem while doing nothing to solve it. Calm down, remove yourself from the situation and objectively analyze the situation. This incident was a fluke, a tragic fluke, but a fluke none the less. Don’t let a fluke de

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
    • All Pro
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:22pm

      We don’t need more gun control laws we need less. Name any other right that requires a background check and a license before one can exercise it.

      The theater was located in a gun free zone. It didn’t stop the looneytune. All it did was create a theater full of law abiding victims. One federally issued permit would go a long way toward solving the problem. It wouldn’t take long to find on Google the fact that the stricter the gun control laws are any where in the country, the higher the rate of crimes involving guns. Outlaws don’t obey laws, that‘s why they’re called outlaws.

      Report Post » All Pro  
    • DYNA
      Posted on July 24, 2012 at 1:40am

      @Corrigenda

      You are out of it. Those who have a spirit of self control should not be subjugated to the likes of James Holmes. What if another maniac, a sleeper, gained access to power at some level of government? These maniacs do have a high level of representation in the United Nations also known as the United Nothing.

      The problem is a sin problem. It is not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of reducing gun ownership rights are also the most anti-Christ when they do not want to hear of Jesus and they keep others from hearing. They might exhibit a form of godliness but they deny the Power of His reality. They have opened themselves up to demonic activity.

      Report Post »  
  • azcowboy1
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:52pm

    Well I disagree with Rush. I think Guns were the problem. Also the nut had 10 gallons of gasoline wired up to. We need to get rid of guns, gasoline and wire. That’ll solve the problem. Also get rid of movies.
    jH…

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:00pm

      We have a thousands of drunk driving fatalities every year too. Prohibition on alcohol and outlaw cars while we’re at it!

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • heavyduty
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:16pm

      Why? Would you rather be killed with a knife or rock? How about axes, and hatchets, or slingshots. Just about anything can be used as a weapon. Your point makes no sense. More restrictions will only inhibit law abiding citizens not the criminals. WAKE UP!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • term limits for congress
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:22pm

      and Big Gulps, and Happy Meals, and fracking.

      Report Post »  
    • azcowboy1
      Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:27pm

      East fella’s. I’m on your side. Just say‘in if we ban everything there won’t be any problems. I do like Obama taking the wrap due to roads and bridges.

      Report Post »  
  • Best_Patriot
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:50pm

    And Limbaugh knows a thing or two about obesity! Look at those jowls!

    Report Post » Best_Patriot  
  • phillyatheist
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:50pm

    well, he ought to know.

    Report Post » phillyatheist  
  • ChildofJesus
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:49pm

    Once again Rush, you hit the nail on the head. Some excellent humor too. :)

    Report Post »  
  • Want our country back
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:49pm

    LIBERALS & RACISTS NEED NOT READ – Something for Mitt Romney to consider: Glenn Beck is having a patriotic rally this weekend called “Restoring Love”, they have collected enough food to feed over 1 million people which will be sent to 11 cities that are in dire need. They have 35,000 volunteers from all over the world that have been working tirelessly to help repair and heal this country. This week-end completes the trilogy, Restoring Honor, Restoring Courage and Restoring Love. The usual suspects, Code Pink and Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting.
    http://www.mittromney.com/forms/suggestions

    Report Post » Want our country back  
  • historyguy48
    Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:44pm

    Comrades now I know why I like Rush! All these years I thought my weight problem was because of what I ate. Now I know the truth, it is all the fault of my fork! Wonderful, maybe I’ll go have another brownie, perhaps with a dash of ice cream on it!

    Report Post » historyguy48  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love