It will take you less than ten minutes to see and hear a wise leader use logic to overcome smug self-righteousness:

Or watch the video here: http://www.kentuckynewera.com/multimedia/video/news/youtube_c2674705-960f-52ed-b8d8-9d2c34d514e4.html .

Thanks to friend and blog reader Vern Kes for the link.

And thanks to reader Curtis for passing this along, in commentary on my last entry here: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment

30 COMMENTS

  2. WOW !! Can you imagine him as the next POTUS after Trump??
    I agree that the morals of this country are fading and that so much is being done to desensitize us.

  3. whoever this guy is, he is SPOT ON THE MARK. Dealing with a chunk of iron will do nothing. It is, and has been a matter of the heart. And he NAILED the most sigificant cultural changes over the past generation, naming them, then explaining HOW they matter.

    I am SO GLAD to learn he explained the same things to Mr. Trump. Who knows how much good that might have done, but at least he’s heard it.

  4. Just read the second article, on that guy Stephens. This line:

    “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    This guy does NOT know his Constitution as he ought. COncern over a standing army was dealt with specifically in that document. The Second has naught to do with that issue. The issue refernced in that Second has nothing to do with the individual states, either, at any level. Thus his idea that it was the separate states conderns led to the Second being adopted is bunkum. or is he conversant with the english tonue, as writte. That clause menitoning the militia is NOT a foundational clause, but merely gives some background and fundation. The essence of that Article of Ammendment is that “the security of a free state (meaning political society, not a georgaphically bound area of land) is the business and burden of THE PEOPLE, (Stephens also forgets that militia is quite simply the whole people, armed and prepared) thus the RUGHT TO ARMS is that of the PEOPLE.

    He can get his “repeal” of that Second Article of Amendment, But that will do NOTHING to remove our God-given birthrivht to armed self defense.

    Makes me wonder how many OTHER “opinions” were tainted by this character.

  5. Thanks for posting this Mas,
    What OUTSTANDING Americans Gov. and Kentucky
    First Lady Mrs Bevin are.
    (I checked out his very impressive Bio online)
    The Republican Party is lucky to have them on the team.
    I also believe that media depictions of killing
    as “games” is to be REJECTED and discouraged by
    both Parents and the Leaders of Society.
    Monkey see and Monkey do.
    Keep your little Monkey away from “Killing” video games
    and media.

    Let’s not squander our Bill of Rights.

  6. I have been saying this for years. I know I am not the only one. This man, perhaps because he has had the unfortunate circumstance which developed in him much empathy, and probably led him to study the problem more so than the common person, has spoken so eloquently, so deeply and exactly. In his few words he articulated the nature of the problem and it’s many manifestations. And he was correct in pointing out that the cry for more government regulation is wrong thinking, delusional.

    Thank you for posting this. This short video should be listened to in class rooms at schools and colleges, and in every legislative chambers across the land.

  8. Gov. Bevin reminds me of Old Testament prophets. They spoke truth, defined problem and cause, accurately foretold the future, and attempted to warn people. For their efforts they were disrespected, scorned, and martyred, by a society that ultimately met its foretold destiny.

  11. The interplay, between Gov. Bevin and the woman who asked the leading (accusing?) question, represents a perfect illustration of the clash between left-wing and Conservative worldviews.

    Gov. Bevin assumes that humans are IMPERFECT creatures. Therefore, moral discipline is necessary to form a civil and law-abiding society. His argument is that America, as a society, has lost the moral direction and discipline necessary for a (relatively) peaceful society. He believes that the rise in mass-murder incidents (especially among the young) is a direct result of this loss of moral direction and discipline. To solve the problem requires addressing this multi-layered issue so as to re-instate a moral society.

    The woman asking the question is a leftist. In direct contrast to Gov. Bevin, she assumes (subconsciously) that humans are naturally PERFECT creatures. That a human exposed to a benign social environment will develop naturally into a moral being. No moral direction or discipline is required. The only thing required is to remove any negative environmental influences that might disrupt this process of “natural goodness growth”.

    She does not believe, for one moment, that the “do your own thing” freedom promoted by the Left does any harm. In her worldview, young people given maximum freedom will generate peaceful “free-spirits”. She views the problem of these mass-murders through the lens of left-wing ideology. She (instinctively) looks for some EXTERNAL environmental condition as its root cause. She finds it (as almost all leftists do) in the concept of weapons-proliferation. She blames the so-called “easy” availability of firearms as the root cause of these mass-murders similar to the way that the easy availability of alcohol was blamed for a host of social problems a century ago. The solution is the same: Prohibition.

    I have no doubt that she “rolled her eyes” as Gov. Bevin placed the blame for the problem upon human weakness and loss of moral direction. Such an explanation directly contradicts the left-wing worldview and would be rejected immediately (without a second thought) by any true Leftist.

  12. OH MY GOD!!!! We NEED this kind of person – if not himself – as POTUS! No one has ever put it so well, so succinctly and perfectly and simultaneously SHUT DOWN the blissfully ignorant anti-gun argument! Where can we get a written transcript of the exchange, and HOW in the name of ALL that is good & holy can we get this One Good Man into the Presidency???????

  14. That dialogue may be the most well articulated response to anti-gunners I’ve ever heard. I can’t imagine him being able to deliver those remarks in the forums offered by the national media, as he would have been shouted down and interrupted continuously to keep him from being heard, much less get his message out. Even in this forum, he made notice of the eye rolling and smirks coming from the one who posed what she saw as a “I gotcha question”. Had the question been asked in a CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, “Town Hall” setting, he would have been shouted down.

    In another vein, did former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer lie when he swore an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution? His belief that the second amendment should be repealed would indicate he believed the constitution was defective as written and should have stated that his oath would only apply to those sections he agreed with. To do otherwise is to deceive others who’s promises actually mean something. But, then again, that’s what liberals do.

  15. WOW! I haven’t heard this kind of common sense in a while. I’m from the very gun friendly state of Kansas, but I would love the have Gov. Bevin as our state leader. I’ve used this moral argument with some of my friends and relatives who own firearms. Most still maintain that it is the guns that are evil. No amount of explaining the change in human behavior over the last 50 years seems to register with them. Yes, I’m a product of 50’s and 60’s schooling. lots of us took guns to school in our cars to hunt after school. Sure there were disagreements and a few fights as with most young people, but no one ever pulled a gun on anyone. I don’t know how we get society back to respecting one another. I do know that firearm restrictions are not the answer. I do believe that in all of human history, no law or restriction ever prevented a crime.

  16. What a great sensible point of view! This man had a great deal of patience and not to mention courage to sit down with what appeared to be a room full of liberals or at least people who don’t like guns and talk in a normal tone of voice after some of the obvious questions asked. I hope that his security detail is very alert because the left will naturally view him as an enemy of their quest to get rid of all guns. I wonder how many of those in the audience who were rolling their eyes and smirking are products of broken homes. Truth sometimes hurts.

  17. This governor very calmly expressed his belief which I agree with. Everyone who listens to this video should share on their Facebook page. And ask their Facebook friends to share also.

  18. YES! Today our children receive no discipline at home (their parents are their “friends”! Many have no fathers (or father figure)! Our children receive no guidance (on right or wrong) from their parents, or their Religion! They receive no discipline at school! Many are “protected” from the consequences of their misbehavior at school or on the street! And they are sheltered from the “shock” of losing any contest! And their leaders and the government tell then that they have a “Right” to protest over historical “wrongs”. Given all of these “PC” “rules”, why should we be shocked at the crimes that are being committed by these misguided,uneducated children. Who have been raised to believe that whatever makes them feel good is OK! And whatever/whoever angers them should be destroyed/punished!

    • Carl,

      It’s amazing how much technology has progressed, and morality has regressed. This is being done on purpose by our enemies. Now we have smart machines and stupid people.

  19. The blessing of retired Supreme Court Stevens in stating what he said is that it proves we’re not paranoid or making things up. By divulging this opinion, we are now given a clear path on what to say and how to proceed.

    Thanks for all the work you do, Mas!

    • Having played video games, I have witnessed small children playing MA17 games. These games are rated for those over 17 years old. These are kids who’s voices haven’t changed, shouting expletives and derogatory comments playing games that encourage killing. If you think this has no effect on young brains you are sadly mistaken. Why parents allow small children to play these games is beyond me. These games are for adults, not kids.

      • I’m assuming those children have no parents, at least in the functional sense. I have witnessed the same thing and upon pointing out the fact that those “games” trivialize violence the most common reply was; “It’s what he wants to do.” A couple of those young boys are now incarcerated.

      • I’m sure you wouldn’t want those same kids to have firearms; the solution isn’t to ban everything that a kid could possibly get their hands on. That way of thinking is why we’re currently having this debate. There is fundamentally no difference between gun control and videogame control — they’re bogeyman, arguments made by people looking for something easy to blame. Violence in art and media have existed forever, and there has not been a proven causation between violent behavior and violent media.

        I play videogames and believe in gun ownership (and it may surprise Bevin but I also value human life), and surround myself with people who do the same. This double-standard breaks all of our hearts.

      • I’m not a “gamer”, I just never could sit long enough to get interested in them. I guess I could condemn them as a contributing factor to violence in young folks, but then, as a child, I grew up with TV westerns and Peacemaker (1873 Colt) replicas that we kids did battle with on the school playgrounds and none I grew up with ever committed a violent crime. Of course, we had the huge benefit of having Dads who taught us the difference between Hollywood fantasy, play guns and real guns, and real life. Two parents engaged in nurturing their offspring to adulthood seems to be sadly missing in the lives of those committing these despicable acts.

  22. I’m proud to have than man as my governor.

    When it comes to the “availability” of firearms, the fact is that prior to 1968, people could mail order guns. If a kid could beat his mom to the mailbox, he could get whatever he wanted. Even semi-auto, high-capacity M1 carbines. Back in those days gun safes at home were unheard of, and no trip to a friends house was complete without checking out the old man’s gun collection.

    Thankfully, that does not go on much anymore (the no-gun safe part). But what has changed since then?

    Up to the mid-1960’s about 1% of the population was in a state mental hospital. A government commission in the mid-1960’s decided that the mentally ill should be sent to the “warm embrace of the community.” The overwhelming majority of the mentally ill now get their treatment in prison, after they have committed crimes. At least 3 – 4 of the recent spree shooters would have been weaving baskets long before their crimes, if the experiment in deinstitutionalization had not taken place.

    The cheapening of life and such has been well noted. Also, the perps who came of age in the last 15 years or so grew up under the “self esteem” movement where everyone was a winner. Well, real world, few are winners and some react poorly when they stop getting participation trophies. Failure is someone else’s fault. And add to that the cultural Marxism / identity politics movement being pushed, where everyone is a minority victim one way or another. They have to strike back at the oppressor group one way or another. Two bad things that go worse together.

    But there is another phenomenon. The legal war over guns, from say the 1960’s up into the end of the 1980’s had nothing to do with rifles of any sort. It was about the “Saturday Night Specials.” Supposedly small, cheap, pot metal pistols only good to use in a crime. (But the proposed laws somehow always covered, well, basically all handguns.) The question was always, since no state at the time had shall-issue laws, why did anyone need a snub nose revolver? Then Florida had shall-issue, and all of a sudden civilians did need concealable handguns. The gun grabbers are horrible at playing defense, and could not deal with it.

    So the Brady Bunch, et al, had to pick a new target. They thought that the public would confuse military-looking rifles with machine guns, so they, and their pimps in the media, promoted how wonderful such rifles would be at doing bad things. Usually showing video segments of machine guns being fired. It is to the point now, that there is a de facto agreement between the media and the perps: the perps get extra special coverage if they use such a weapon. The perps are happy to oblige, and it is a win-win for them both.

    There is a fantastic irony, that after every mass shooting, the other side seems to say, “just wait until the LEO’s tell us what gun was used, if was one of those rifles we’ll have a field day”. Now wait, if a massacre could have been perpetrated with any gun made since, say, the Civil War, what difference does it make what it perpetrated with? If someone shoots six people with a revolver, the media yawns, local story. If someone shoots six people with a semi-auto rifle, especially one made out of mid-1950’s era technology, then all of a sudden it is wall to wall coverage.

    So who is responsible for people shooting up schools and other such places with military looking rifles: the gun grabbers and their pimps in the media. The worked long and hard at making it popular. The one single way anyone can have their 15 minutes, no, 15 DAYS, of fame in this country is to get one and shoot up several people.

  23. Back when my Grandfather was in High School (in Chicago!) he was a member of the school’s Rifle Team just like kids all over the country at the time. There were no background checks and even a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun could be purchased by any citizen that wanted one. They could even be ordered and purchased at hardware stores. And yet there were no school shootings. Calling for more “gun control” laws to try to solve a problem that didn’t even exist before we had any “gun control” laws seems to me to be an irrational way to address this problem. Of course, the whole idea of passing laws to control inanimate objects is itself a bit silly.

  24. And then there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to notice many of these shooters have been medicated since grade school. shoving every kid who is a little antsy full of mind altering drugs and thinking nothing of the long term results. What could possibly go wrong?

Comments are closed.