Guns, Political Parties, Punishments, and more! Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Guns, Political Parties, Punishments, and more! Foundations of Freedom Thursday: It”s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Always answering your questions from constitutional principles! Tune in today as we answer your questions regarding guns, the changes in the Democratic and Republican parties through the years, comparing punishment in the Founding Era and Bible times, and so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date:Â 07/12/2018

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

WallBuilders | American historical events, founding fathers, historical documents, books, videos, CDs, tapes, David Barton’s speaking schedule.
Coupons: Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order on ALL WallBuilders Store Products!!
Helpful links:

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note: Â As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Rick:

You”ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we”re talking about today”s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. And today’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, so we’re diving into your questions. You get to decide what we talk about today, so send those questions in to [email protected], that’s [email protected]

They’re going to be answered by David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders. And also by Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor, and president of WallBuilders. My name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas legislator and it’s my job to keep these guys on time. So, we’re going to dive right in.

Oh, wait, by the way, two websites – go to WallBuildersLive.com today and you can get more of these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs, or our Good News Friday programs, or some of the great interviews we get the opportunity to do throughout the week. And then also going to WallBuilders.com, our main website, where you can get our articles, and DVDs, and curriculum, all kinds of great things there for you to equip and inspire your family. So, check that out at WallBuilders.com.

David, Tim, I”ve got a boatload of questions here. We’ll try to see if we can get to at least three or four today. You all ready?

Tim:

Sounds good.

On Guns and Statistics

Rick:

First one is on guns, it”s from Luke Davis. He said, “I have heard David Barton state many times, and I believe it, that five crimes are prevented for every one committed with a gun because the victim had a gun to protect themselves. I’d like to use this fact in debates, but what is the citation, where does the proof for this fact come from?” And, David, just to clarify the question, I think what we’ve said many times is that there’s five times as often a crime prevented by a gun as a gun is used to commit a crime.

So, it’s about– John * does a bunch of research on this and there’s a couple other studies on it too. But it’s literally five to one.

David:

Yeah, there’s various research out there. I know we saw one in 2010 that said that. And I don’t know that I’ve actually seen current research on it, but that is probably the number of stories we see come across.

Rick:

Yeah, no, I think there are recent studies on it. The one that I’ve always– of course, this goes back to when I was a legislator and I had several bills dealing with this. But John *, Yale Law School professor, he actually did a book on this called, More Guns Less Crime. Now, that sounds counterintuitive to what most people think today – if you have more guns you”re going to more crime. He says, no, more guns less crime. This was about a 2001-2002 book. But he went through all the research of government statistics and everything else and just showed it’s about five times as often that a guns used to stop a crime as one is used to commit a crime.

But then there was one, I think you’re right, in 2010. I think there’s been several government studies. And I can look those up and get them on our website, but it’s been over and over again proven that every statistical gun you take off the street you might be stopping one, but you’re allowing several other crimes to take place.

A Bad Day For a Carjacker

David:

Yeah, we’re on several feeds that are kind of like Second Amendment feeds, news stories. And certainly, the stories that come across are overwhelming that direction. I was even laughing today – talk about bad luck for a carjacker. He tried twice to carjack a car and each guy, each car, he got in had a gun pointed at him when he got in. It’s like, that’s not a real good day for a carjacker if you can’t find a car that doesn’t have a gun in it.

Tim:

Actually, I would argue that was a really good day because he got in two cars with people with guns and got out alive.

David:

That’s true.

Rick:

That”s true.

Tim:

You are the luckiest carjacker in the world that you got in with two people with guns and you somehow survived. So, bravo, or brava as the case might be, for the self-control of the drivers to not blast this guy. That would be terrifying. And yeah, so the fact he made it out alive is impressive.

David:

I’ve seen, also I think in the last week, I’ve seen at least two Wal-Mart shootings that were stopped by people in Wal-Mart who had guns. I saw one at a restaurant up in *. None of these I”ve seen make major news, but the news feeds we get deal with guns, anything that”s got guns. And the number of stories that come across certainly are much more impressive on crimes stopped by good guys with guns than those that involve bad guys trying to do stuff with guns.

Rick:

No doubt about it. Alright, guys, let’s take a break here and we’ll get to some additional questions when we come back. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment in American history. America is a special and unique nation. The average length for a constitution in other countries is only 17 years. But we’ve had ours for over two centuries. Our 4 percent of the world’s population produces 24 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and every year we produce more inventions and technology than the other 96 percent of the world combined.

In 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville of France came to America, traveled the country, and in his famous book, “Democracy in America” reported, Â “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional. It may be believed that no Democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”

This is the origin of the phrase “American exceptionalism” and affirms that America is unique because of the distinctive ideas on which we’ve been based. Including in inalienable rights, individuals, and limited government, and the importance of religion, and morality. For more information about American exceptionalism go to WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “The constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders live. Foundations of freedom Thursday today which means we’re getting to your questions. You can send those into us if you’d like at [email protected], that’s [email protected].

Do the Democrat and Republican Parties Switch Back and Forth?

Rick:

Alright, David, Tim, the next one comes from Pensacola, Florida. Jacqueline said, “First, let me say thank you for investing your life, your time, into preserving truth in this great nation that I love. You were indeed chosen for such a time as this. I look forward to the long commute to work each day because I get to listen to these podcasts. I’m learning so much and I’m truly grateful for you.

“My question is I’ve noticed that the Democratic and Republican parties have changed many times throughout the years. Things that seem to have stood out about one in past years now seem to be the stance of the other party. I’d like to learn more about the parties and what they stood for throughout the years as well as what our presidents believed. Do you have any articles on this or can you address it on an upcoming program?”

Alright, David, Tim, I’m not sure where you want to go with this question, but I”ve got to recommend David’s American history in black and white because it actually uncovers a lot of the history of the parties that is not taught at all today. Especially the Democrat party’s ties to the KKK and all kinds of horrible things in our history. And I’m not so sure I would agree with her that they’ve really switched back and forth. Â I used to think that because people would say that. What do you guys think?

David:

Well, and by the way, Jacqueline, thank you for the question. Thank you for listening to the podcast. We really appreciate that and thanks for the kind words.

Rick:

Yes

David:

I would probably want more clarification. I would say, “Can you give me some examples of what you’re talking about where the two have switched?” Maybe it’s on economic issues, I don’t know. My experience over the platforms of the parties, and platforms is often what I go with. And by the way, we did a piece a few years back called “In Their Own Words” where we simply took the Republican and Democrat platform for the last several decades and we took several issues – issues related to marriage, or Israel, or religious expression, or school choice, etc. and in their own words we just let the platform of the parties do the speaking.

Going Back to the Solid Democrat South

David:

So, I would be curious as to what Jacqueline is choosing to say that there’s been switches. And I don’t know, maybe there has, but at least going by platforms there’s not that many switches. But, Rick, as you point out, that is a charge I often hear now is, “Well, yeah, the Democrats were related to the KKK, they started it, it was their group, they took proud ownership of it. But today it’s all different, the racists are all in the Republican Party.” And so that’s the one I hear most often.

And so in doing that, my simple question is, “Okay, name them. Show me the racists in the Republican Party.” Well, the Republicans are just generally racists. “Show me. Name them.” And folks really can’t.

So, there’s these vast charges thrown out and what I have done on several occasions is say, “Okay, let’s go back to what used to be called the solid Democrat south. It was the solid Democrat south that all the Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrat legislatures hands down. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the Democrat Party to allow blacks to start being elected. In the sense that it took the court striking down Democratic redistricting, so the first two blacks could be elected as Democrats – Barbara Jordan in Texas and Andrew Young in Georgia. It took the Supreme Court telling the Democrats, “Change the way you draw your lines and let blacks be elected.”

So, you’ve got all that kind of stuff and say, “Okay, if I go back to when it was a solid Democrat south and I look at all the counties across the Democrat south, and if I look at just the 11 states that used to belong to the Confederacy, because those are the states where there is the most racial tension, has been. Accept New York – New York was always a weird state, it was loaded up with Democrats. And New York, even back in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, they fully supported slavery, their leaders did. They just didn’t support breaking the United States up to keep slavery.

So, they were fully pro slavery and anti abolition. They just weren’t willing to do what the South did and break it up. So, New York is a very, very, bad state for race and racism etc. historically.

Looking at the South

David:

But let’s take the south, take those led states, and say, “Okay, in those 11 states you have governors, you have lieutenant governors, you have state senators, you have state representatives, you have major mayors, you have city council– in any given state in an election there’s anywhere from 500 to 1000 people running on the ballot in Texas. We’re closer to 5000 people running on the ballot.

So, let’s just say that over a period of 40 years with the height of the Jim Crow law, all these racist democrats that were there in the 50s, and 60s, and 70s, and 80s, let’s say they all jumped over to the Republican Party. And let’s say that in those 11 states you had maybe 5000 people running for office as Democrats each cycle. So, 5000 people running every two years for 40 years – you’re looking at maybe 100,000 people that we can point to.

So, name ten who are racist democrats that then became racist Republicans. I’ve never had anyone get two or three and they”ll say, David Duke. Well, no, no, no, David Duke became a Republican and went back to the Democrat Party. He is currently a Democrat, so you can’t use that one. Well, there was Strom Thurmond. Yeah, the Dixiecrat Party in 1946. He was a Democrat, he ran as a racist, he became a Republican when his views on race changed. And he became the first Southern senator to appoint a black into a high position in the Senate staff.

Tim:

Which, by the way, I think Strom Thurmond– I think part of part of this shift, even his change in political party, it seems like my studying on him he actually converted to Christianity before he changed parties too.

What An Interesting Change

David:

Oooo, what an interesting change.

Tim:

Is my recollection. Now, I am saying that on air without having actually verified that, so it’s only a possibility at the that moment. Don’t take that hard and fast to the bank. But that’s my recollection is that that’s part of what caused him to shift was he had a faith moment, changed his belief system, but I think he became a Christian and then switched too, which would also be significant.

David:

Yeah, it would. So, I’m not sure specifically what Jacqueline was talking about. But, Rick, you brought up the race issue and that’s the one that I generally hear the most. And so I”d just throw the question back and say, “Okay, you say that, prove it. Give me the evidence that the parties have flipped on the race position.” And it’s just– it’s rhetoric that they hear and it”s stuff that professors throw out. We’ve had professors throw that at us. And when you challenge the, on it there’s just not the evidence that they claim there is.

So, but it could be Jacqueline’s talking other stuff as well. It could be other issues – school, or education, or public– who knows what it is. But generally, on the race issue, there is no evidence that what used to be Democrats are now Republicans. Particularly, on the race side.

Rick:

Alright, we’re going to take another quick break and we’ll get to some more questions when we return. Stay with us folks. It’s WallBuilders Live on Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “The more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”

Share a veteran’s story

We Want To Hear Your Vet Story

Rick:

Hey friends! If you have been listening to WallBuilders Live for very long at all, you know how much we respect our veterans and how appreciative we are of the sacrifice they make to make our freedoms possible. One of the ways that we love to honor those veterans is to tell their stories here on WallBuilders Live. Â Once in awhile, we get an opportunity to interview veterans that have served on those front lines that have made incredible sacrifices have amazing stories that we want to share with the American people.

One of the very special things we get to do is interview World War II veterans. You’ve heard those interviews here on WallBuilders Live, from folks that were in the Band of Brothers, to folks like Edgar Harrell that survived the Indianapolis to so many other great stories you heard on WallBuilders Live.

You have friends and family that also served. Â If you have World War II veterans in your family that you would like to have their story shared here on WallBuilders Live, please e-mail us at [email protected] Â Give us a brief summary of the story and we’ll set up an interview. Thanks so much for sharing here on WallBuilders Live!

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Rick:

Welcome back! Thanks for staying with us on WallBuilders Live. Foundations of Freedom Thursday today which means we’re getting to your questions and you can send them in to [email protected], that’s [email protected]

Next one comes from Sumi. So, Sumi says, “I understand that in the time of the Israelites people who swore falsely in a case got the punishment of the accused. Did this happen also in the founding era? And are there any efforts to come back to that today?” Interesting question. So, if you lie to try to get somebody convicted of something and then they find out you lied, you get the punishment you were hoping that person would get.

Punishments Then and Now

David:

Yeah it’s kind of a thing that if you lied hoping that someone would get the death penalty and it turned out that they hadn’t done it and you lied about, then you get the death penalty. Or if you lied hoping that they would go to jail for ten years for stealing and they actually didn’t steal, then you go to jail for ten years. So, I’ve heard that before and I’ve got to say that I can’t find that in the Bible. I cannot find that, but I’ve heard people say that before.

And so even before the program I went back and scanned through it, maybe there’s a Bible verse I”m missing somewhere, but I sure can find it in the Bible.

Tim:

Yeah, I was thinking as Rick read the question, dad, as you were mentioning, I was thinking, “I don’t remember reading that anywhere in the Bible story.” Although, Â certainly, the Bible is very clear that you’re not supposed to perjure yourself. It’s the ninth commandment, I think, right, that you don’t bear false witness against somebody? And certainly, there are punishments associated with that and it’s possible that at some point in history that was the case. But I don’t remember any Bible examples or any verse that says that’s what the punishment has to be.

And with that being said I don’t recall in the founding era. Somebody says, “Yeah, I saw this guy steal 200 dollars.” And it turns out he didn’t. Okay, well, then the liar has to pay the two hundred dollars. No, I don’t recall even seeing any of those stories in the founding era – did that ever happen?

David:

I don’t know of a single case in the founding era. And, Tim, I saw even today you’re in the middle of this leadership training program which is a really cool program. Young people from 18 to 25 Â generally going into college, or in college, or in master’s programs, or whatever. And today you were going through each of the Ten Commandments, and the American legal codes, and the American court cases, that cited each of those Ten Commandments specifically, individually, for each of those things. And as you went through it today, I was listening, I didn’t hear anything from any court or any law where the punishment for perjury was that you’re going to bear whatever you tried to get accomplished.

Extreme Punishments?

Tim:

No. Now, some of them, I even think in perjury in some of back to the Puritan colonies. Some of the punishments were extreme according to some of the laws where there was a few situations where death was the punishment for violating some of these commands. Where adultery in the early colonies, you could be put to death. Now, even that is something that you see biblically in the Old Testament. And so it does seem that early colonial laws followed some of the Old Testament in suit as far as the punishment is concerned.

But, yeah, nothing that specified that whatever you were accusing somebody of, if it found out that you were lying, then you would then be held responsible and you had to pay the penalty based on what you were accusing them of. So, no examples like that, although, it’s an interesting thing to talk about historically.

David:

Yeah, it is. And it could be that it was there in other nations. I just, I’m not aware of it in the American experience that that was the case. Although, in the American experience it always was wrong to commit perjury, just like the Ten Commandments. This is something that was part of our legal code, that was part of our common law, courts ruled on it all the time, they cited the Ten Commandments as the basis for it. But I’ve never seen the punishment be proportional to the intent of the person who committed perjury. I just don’t remember that in the Bible, I couldn’t find it just quickly looking before the program. And I don’t recall it in American history and I haven’t seen it that I know of in American history.

Rick:

Quick break, guys. We got time for one more question today. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Samuel Adams said, “The liberties of our Country and the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

Leadership Training Program

Rick:

Hey, friends! We’ve got a great program to share with you today. It”s the WallBuilders Leadership Training Program and it’s an opportunity for 18 to 25 year olds to come spend two weeks diving into the original documents we’re always talking about here on WallBuilders Live.

Tim, you’ve already been doing this a couple of summers and seen the results of young people coming to this program. We’re going to see more of them coming this year.

Tim:

Yeah, Rick, it”s something that”s been cool to see the transformation with young people coming in. The emphasis, for us, largely is a pursuit of truth. We have a culture that doesn’t know what truth is. We don’t know what biblical truth is, or constitutional truth, or the American heritage that we have. And so we really dive into original documents and say, “Well, what did they actually write? What did they actually do? Not just what did somebody say, what is actually true, and the truth is what’s transformational.

David:

Yeah, guys. This really is a remarkable opportunity. And for those who want to spend time with us and spend time in the original documents, this is a great program. So, if you’re from 18 to 25, or you know someone who’s 18 to 25, send them to sign up for one of our three sessions this summer at WallBuilders.com/leadershiptraining.

Intro:

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders Live. Time for one more question today and this one comes from Gilbert. He said, “I heard on a couple of youtube channels that Mr. Bennett, meaning Mark Bennett nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is against the Second Amendment. On your show I’ve heard that President Trump has been nominating pretty good, great people. Question – is this a bad choice and President Trump did not do a good job on this one? Or are the people on YouTube mistaken with this nominee? Thank you.”

Good question. So, this is a ninth circus court of appeals nominee, Mark Bennett.

The Ninth Circus

David:

I think Gilbert listens to the program. Ninth Circus, yeah, that’s pretty much our description for that court right there.

Rick:

Because we refer to it as the Ninth Circus, yeah. So, I don’t know, guys, you may know more about this guy, Bennett. I don’t even know his background, but I’m assuming in the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals you”ve got to choose these judges from California, from Washington. You’re looking for someone in an area where, frankly, most of the judges and others are going to be at least moderate, if not liberal. So, if you can find somebody that”s good on 90 percent of the issues you’re probably doing pretty well.

But I honestly don’t know the background on this particular guy. Man, I can’t remember all the states the Ninth Circus, Circuit, covers, but none of them are what you’d call conservative states.

David:

Well, the Ninth Circus covers seven states, about 54 million Americans. It is the western states – it’s Hawaii, it’s California, it”s Oregon, Washington, Idaho, goes–

Rick:

Oh, so it does have one conservative state, Idaho, in there.

David:

Yeah, you”ve got Idaho in there. And the way the Ninth Circus works is they kind of do quotas. California’s got the most population. So, of the 29 judges that are in the Ninth Circuit a certain number have to come from California, biggest population. Then you have a judge that has to come from Hawaii, and you have to have one out of Idaho, and they have numbers that come from each of these slots. And so the president has to pick within that.

The Listener is Right

David:

However, having said that, even if this nominee has to come out of California, I’ll guarantee you there’s a conservative in California that’s pro Constitution, and pro all the right stuff. And so when you look at Bennett, which is, that’s what the question is about from Gilbert. He’s right – this is not what we would consider to be a good constitutional guy on several issues.

Rick:

You’re saying, David, no excuse that he comes from these moderates.

David:

No, no.

Rick:

Because even in California there are some good people and good judges. So, what I was saying earlier really is a broad stroke that we shouldn’t make. We should say, “Hey, even in these moderate to liberal states there are some good people that could serve in these positions.”

David:

That’s exactly right. And so in the case of Bennett, who’s been nominated for the Ninth Circuit, he’s wrong, in my opinion, on Second Amendment issues, he’s wrong, in my opinion, on LGBT issues, and traditional morality and sexuality, etc. And so for me, that’s not a judge that I would promote and be comfortable with. But, see, at the same time, let me see if I can put this in perspective. At this point in time, Trump has nominated 128 nominees to the courts. Bennett is the first one that I know of that I have differences with. So, there’s probably others out there that I don’t know about.

Rick:

And we were hoping for 50 percent–

We were Hoping for 50 Percent

David:

We were hoping for 50 percent.

Rick:

–which means there should have been about 65 like this already.

David:

Now, I do know about dozens and dozens of his nominees. I don’t know about all 128, but this is the first one that I’ve heard of that is not somebody that I would say, “That’s that’s a good nominee.” So, even if this guy gets through– and who knows what the kind of outcry, maybe Trump pulls him and puts somebody else there, who knows what’s going to happen with this. And who knows where the recommendation came from initially because I don’t think it’s somebody that Trump personally knew, or if this was what was recommended to him by somebody who is out in that area, who knows.

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

Well, and I would point out too in the midst of this, it’s interesting that you can have somebody who you appreciate on a lot of levels, right. If you go back to Reagan, Reagan appointed some crazy judges.

David:

Oh yeah.

Rick:

Right.

Tim:

And when you look at what Trump has done to this point he’s appointed some home run judges. Dad, I’ve heard you say several times that, “I don’t think there’s a judge to this point that we don’t agree with.” And that was based on the knowledge that we had.

Rick:

Sure.

A Reagan Moment For Trump?

Tim:

So, of the two dozen judges that we know, we”re like, man, these guys are amazing. Because we actually knew several of the judges personally. We know them, some really great guys that are there personally. But as you mentioned, we don’t know all the 100 whatever guys he’s nominated. So, it’s very possible there could be three, or four, or eight, or 12, that really aren’t good judges.

You look at a guy like Ronald Reagan who we look at his presidency and, generally, as a conservative we go, man, we appreciate what he did, but didn’t appreciate all the nominations. This could be that moment for Trump, but maybe there’s enough outcry this will be a nomination that changes.

Rick:

Well, guys, as we’re closing out these last few e-mails are not questions, just comments, but I thought we”d share it with our listeners. This one from Paul says, “Enjoy your podcast very much. More people should listen in.” Another one says, “Thanks for your radio show. My wife and I commute together and find your podcast able to make the traffic bottlenecks and crazy drivers totally inconsequential to our mood and general outlook on life.” Another one says, “Hello, WallBuilders, I love the show and listen every day. Thank you guys for all that you do.”

And the last one from Alex, “I’ve been using WallBuilders materials to educate myself and family for a decade. And last year came across the world of podcasts!” So Alex is pretty excited. Says, “Thanks for all that you do.”

You can share those podcasts, you can share the archives of programs from the last few months through our website – WallBuildersLive.com, so check that out today. And also get to WallBuilders.com. If you agree with these e-mails that we’re getting, and these comments from our listeners, and you’d like to have more people listening to this program, you can help make that happen by coming alongside us. Share the program, e-mail it out, put it on Twitter, and Facebook, and everywhere else that you can.