“This is Priceless” – SCOTUS Rejects Trump on Citizenship, Eyes AR-15 Bans – Ty

This is the ruling that they had with Supreme Court yesterday for birthright citizenship and I want to share a pattern with you. And you tell me if you’re concerned about this or not. So, if we look at this these stories that we have yesterday with the birthright citizenship where the president comes out and tweets and says, “Congratulations to China.

” This was a very big victory for China and a lot of people are like, “Well, that’s not funny. That’s not this.” But maybe it is. Let’s look at this even bigger than that because there’s a lot of things that went his way. There’s a lot of things that he won, but the Democrats thought automatically when he got Neil Gorsuch appointed on April 10th, 2017 that this was it.

Then when he got Brett Kavanaugh on October 6th, 2018, “Oh my god. Then then we got Amy Coney Barrett and they’re like, “Oh, this They’re going to rule everything in his favor. 100% of the time they’re going to rule in his favor. It’s going to be like a just a stamp rubber stamp. Just go ahead. He’s going to get everything that he wants.

” And I’m going to show you a pattern and you tell me whose track record of being able to reason and say, “I don’t know. I don’t know.” And who was, “Nope, no matter what I’m siding this way.” So, if we go from the beginning till today, remember when Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in, she got in.

A month later they were trying to get the Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 election. Do you know all three Trump appointees declined to block or overturn the certified election. He gave them the jobs. They voted against him. They’re like, “Nope, we’re not doing this.” All right, I guess this you know court packing stuff doesn’t work.

Then when you go look at the couple different things that just happened recently, the losses, the birthright citizenship 6-3. Look at the patterns. All three leftist ruled against him. Now, keep in mind when we look at the conservatives that we have in Supreme Court, what names do we have of those that are in the Supreme Court that are conser- conservatives.

Tom, can you give all the names? So, we have Roberts. ; Correct. ; We have uh ; Clarence Thomas. ; Clarence Thomas, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh ; Gorsuch. ; Gorsuch. And you look at the left, Ketanji Jackson, Kagan, and we have Sotomayor, right? ; And Alito. ; Don’t forget yeah, Alito. ; Alito. So, wa- watch this pattern.

Trump versus Barbara, critical loss, okay? Democrats voted against it. No problem, 3-0. Let’s see if they have the ability to reason. Policy and institutional wins, Little versus Cox. This is in West- He Cox in West Virginia, 6-3 decision affirming that states have full constitutional authority to restrict schools and colleges sports teams based strictly on biological sex.

This is men not competing with women’s sports. You would assume everybody voted and said, “Yeah, this is common sense.” Nope. The three Democrats all voted with the Democratic position. Let me keep going. Wolford against Lopez, 6-3. Uh decision striking down Hawaii’s vampire rule that banned concealed carry permit holders from entering private businesses without an explicit posted invitation.

All three Democrats against it. NRSC against FEC, 6-3 decision striking down federal limits on how much national political parties can spend in direct coordination with their candidates, 6-3. This one we may not even be for. I don’t even know if that’s a good idea because it’s I want money out of politics.

This brings more money into politics, right? ; bad for small independent candidates. ; It is. It is. So, Blanck versus Lao, another 6-3, Democrats against it. Then you go E. Jean Carroll, all three Democrats voted. He lost, I think he has to pay like $5 million. Federal Reserve Independence, 5-4, all Democrats against it.

Election logistics, all Democratic. If you look at one pattern, this is what you’ll notice. You will notice there has never ever been a time where Democrats sided with Trump. But, there’s been many, many instances where conservative judges sided with Democrats. So, what does this mean? I mean, it’s just like for A lot of people would even say Trump had a pretty good record with the Supreme Court. A lot of things got done.

Roe, you know, the whole Dobbs with Roe v. Wade, and that was a big thing that he got done. Affirmative action, that was a big thing that he got done. So, hey, the executive power got a lot stronger. But, that’s not what I want to what I want you know, what I want to talk about with this. It’s long-term.

What happens if this is 6-3 the other way around? ; Mhm. ; That’s all I want you to think about, cuz it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen in the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years. When that day comes, what will take place? Cuz they vote for them every time. There is no dispute. There is no debate. Conservatives will debate.

Conservatives will say, “No, I think Trump’s going a little bit too much.” Conservatives will say, “No, I think that’s too aggressive.” Democrats are going to be like, “Nope, I’m siding with my party.” Every single time over what’s actually good and right for the country. If we go back 6 years ago, if the ruling was the other way around, if Democrats had control of the Supreme Court 6-3, you know what would have happened with Colorado? Trump wouldn’t have been able to vote.

That would have been off the ballot. He wouldn’t have been on the 2020, 2024, whatever the Colorado ballot was the first one that came out saying There would have been This would have been a very very different America you’d be living in today. I don’t even know if many of us would be able to do the podcast and talk about the things that we talk about.

Control would be on a complete different side. Many of the social media companies would be worried about the control. So, even though on the executive side, there’s been some good that’s happened to the president, I think it’s important to always keep in the back of your mind, brace for impact for the day where Democrats have control over this whole thing on the Supreme Court side because they don’t they don’t have the ability to reason.

They’re always party party party party voting all the way down on whatever the Democrat Party wants, that’s what they side with. And a 29-year-old socialist also won yesterday over another person that was on their 15th term. Another democratic socialist won yesterday. So, keep in mind this socialism message is getting some traction in many different ma

rkets. July 1st 6:00 p.m. today we are hosting the fatherhood webinar on how to raise strong kids in a bad society and a weak culture. If you haven’t yet registered, this is your last chance. Go to vtwebinar.com. Register again vtwebinar.com. We’ll cover six different types of fathers, 20 uh rules for strong fathers on how to raise kids.

And last but not least, 10 conversations every father should have with his kids. If you haven’t registered, go to vtwebinar.com. Again, vtwebinar.com. All right, let’s get right into it. Supreme Court ruling. Tom, your thoughts with the Supreme Court ruling on what they’re doing uh all over the place, the announcement that was made yesterday. Birthright citizenship.

; Well, birthright citizenship, I think is is just wrong-headed. Absolutely wrong-headed. There are two things that the Supreme Court has done in the last 15 years that have really kind of made me boil. And one of them was the Roberts decision uh Citizens United that basically changed the way you could fund elections, opening the floodgates to make, you know, independent candidates just have incredible headwinds unless you’ve got the backing of a PAC or the RNC DNC.

And I don’t think that’s the spirit of our elections. And so, now we had an election decision yesterday and then birthright, which means that, you know, a Chinese spy can just, you know, come on up in the Honolulu uh child, ; [laughter] ; you know, and and then we’ve got we have a future citizen sitting there and waiting.

They And by the way, they take them home. They take them home and they indoctrinate them into their ways and now they’re they’re able to come here at college or whatever and I look at this and I’m like, wait a minute. This isn’t what the founding fathers meant by this. This is this is not this is not the deal.

It this is now a loophole and sometimes you have to look at the Constitution and say there’s a loophole. So this upset me and then I’ll give you my headline. My headline is this. For all of you that are wondering why Ketanji Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan, why did they go the way they because the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and to end debate.

And up the up above the Supreme Court, it says there is no appeal except to God. I believe that’s etched up at the the headstone of limestone there at the Supreme Court, which means the argument stops here. We’re finishing it. Now, but if the Dems don’t believe in our Constitution, they don’t want our Constitution, then they are merely doing what’s called legislation from the bench.

So for anyone that’s confused why the Dems do this, it’s cuz they’re legislating from the bench. They are not interpreting the Constitution and saying, wait a minute, here’s the here’s the argument for and against, how do we interpret this through the Constitution and that’s what the Supreme Court was to do, to write opinions that said interpreting the Constitution and this precedent and this precedent and this and we feel this way.

No, they are increa- and this is why you hear Democrats in Senate and Congress, why can’t we just stack the Supreme Court? ; Yeah. ; Cuz they just see it as a rubber stamp on what they want and they don’t want what’s in our Constitution. ; Yeah, and by the way, if you go back to that one New York Post story about China and what they were charging.

I don’t know if you you have that or not, if you want to pull it up. So it was interesting. Not not this one, the one I sent you about China what they were doing for a million and a half, you know, guys, Chinese millionaires and billionaires. I sent it to you guys in a group text guy. That one right there, how China of birth tourism and scammed American citizenship for up to 1 and 1/2 million babies.

So, this is a business model. They were literally paying surrogates $100,000 to $200,000 saying, “Hey, have a kid there, we’ll bring So, now he’s a US citizen, bring him back to China, indoctrinate him, then send him back to US.” And who knows, in 40, 50 years, maybe they can get involved in politics and change policy.

America, we think short-term. We think 5, 10, 20 years. China, they think 40, 50, 60 years. They think long-term on what changes they can make. So, what was your position with what happened yesterday? ; So, number one, I think the 14th Amendment, we have to look at it. It was It was amended for slavery.

It wasn’t amended for this idea of mass immigration that could be abused. I also think it’s important to note that the conservative justices have shown that they will put limit on executive power where they can, but that doesn’t mean that they believe that Congress can’t legislate against this kind of thing. So, that’s a hopeful avenue to make a difference.

That’s I think, by the way, if we just look back, it’s so ironic to look at how the left responded to the nomination of Kavanaugh, the mass protests, the violence and everything, calling to pack the courts. And the great hypocrisy there is they were projecting. Because if they got their way and they had a democratic justice, they know that they would get everything they want.

So, they just projected that that’s what’s going to happen on the right. And it didn’t turn out that way, but there has to be some limitation on this. It’s such an abuse to our system. So, ; Snyder. ; Yeah, I mean, that the Chinese story, when when Trump made that tweet that, you know, congratulations, China, he was making a point here that it’s not really birth I mean, it’s literally the Manchurian candidate or the potential for Manchurian candidate as a start.

But not just the, you know, run Chinese CCP-bred candidates through the US system, it’s also voters. Cuz all those citizens that are over there living in China going through Chinese schools being taught by the CCP can come back at their leisure to the United States and maybe go to a red state that is 49, 51 voting and suddenly an influx of Chinese immigration, they’re really just US voters because they’re they’re naturally or they’re citizens, suddenly the the the entire demographic of the voting voting public changes, and suddenly it’s it’s a completely

different story. So, this is he’s really he’s really got something important here. And to Tom’s point, um it’s it’s about yes, the the conservative I hate that the fact there’s a conservative and liberal block cuz there really shouldn’t be, but the conservative block is saying, “Look, we don’t necessarily disagree with the policy.

We we disagree with the methodology to fix it.” But there are times when this is broken, as you said, and there’s loopholes in the loopholes in the Constitution or loopholes in the laws that maybe we need to look past all that and realize, as you said, this is not this is not applicable to the circumstances that we have, and we maybe maybe need to take a more pragmatic ; me ask you. Here’s a question for you.

Does China have birthright citizenship? I don’t believe so. ; Not at all. ; What other No, they’re very tight. ; European countries do have it. ; Outside of European countries, ; Very few. Very few. ; our enemies has birthright citizenship? ; So, why are we offering that to them? What what in an exchange because to me a part of this negotiation, imagine you’re in the room and you’re amongst the seven Supreme Court justices and you’re having a conversation, and you say, “Why doesn’t China do this?” ; Mhm.

; Why what Why do what countries don’t allow it? I want to know which ones don’t allow it, not allow it. Is this the one that don’t allow it or allow it? No, it automatically nearly everyone. Who doesn’t allow it? Who doesn’t allow birthright citizenship? ; First statement, vast majority. ; Vast majority don’t allow.

Okay, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Czech, Australia don’t allow. ; Most of the countries in Asia. ; Japan, China, South Korea, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam. Go to go lower. Israel, South Arabia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait.

Then you got Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco. Then you got Australia, New Zealand. Keep going a little bit lower that don’t allow birthright citizenship. ; Pat, those were only partial list, too. The the full list is much bigger. ; Also, there is an argument in the that that the Supreme Court could have taken that is that does justify us not giving citizenship, which is like jurisdiction thereof.

In other words, the the ability to have citizenship is based on allegiance. It is not just based on being born. There is a jurisdiction issue. So, if you can say that these people do not have an allegiance to the United States, that they don’t have a right to be citizens here just because they’re born. ; Wasn’t that the argument that Ketanji Brown was making or or Jackson was making about uh ; If you get against it.

; Right. If you get arrested in Japan, where is my allegiance? That that whole thing. I mean ; Yeah, I remember that. That was like 6 weeks ago or something like that. I saw that. Yeah. So, Brandon, where you at with this? ; Oh, no. It’s horrible. I mean, we just had the the mayor in California that um was uh found to be a Chinese spy.

So, I mean, stuff like that’s right in our faces. ; or something? ; Uh-huh. Yeah. So, I mean, who knows what level that could be happening at? And um I really don’t like the amount of um power the Supreme Court has like in in courts in general uh lately. You know, they’ve been getting in the way of a lot of what Trump is doing.

And it’s just like Congress how you said where um the Republicans always end up getting divided and the Democrats are always in unison no matter how crazy it is. So, like I’m like imagine the full extent of what the Supreme Court could do if, you know, things cuz I always said it was a godsend that that Trump was able to somehow uh be in a position where he could get three Supreme Court judges.

So, that was totally lucky. You know, thank God that he did cuz it saved a few things. Like he’d probably be in jail if that didn’t happen. And and also um he wouldn’t have even gotten on the ballot. But like imagine if that went the other way like with how united they are, how much they could push through, you know, seamlessly.

; You you’re you’re right. Yeah, absolutely. Again, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, most of Europe, no birthright citizenship. So, why are we doing it? Why are we giving it to you? ; Cuz a lot of people hate our country. ; So what if what if they said the following? What if like a part of it where I would have reason? So say now the opposing side comes and says, “Pat, what if we allow it with countries that allow birthright citizenship for us?” Maybe there’s a little bit of reason there.

Because it is benefiting who? Not us, them. ; Mhm. ; So if you’re not allowing me, why should I allow you? That that’s not a that’s just not a fair negotiation at at with anybody. ; It’s an adversary. ; It’s an Yeah, why am I letting you do it? Be like, “Listen, you guys can’t have your products in our country.

” I don’t know if you guys saw what happened with auto sales from 24 to 25. US automakers in US from 2024 to 2025, we had 12% of market share in China in 2024. It’s at 5% right now. So we went from 12% to 5%. So what is China doing? China’s like, “Get all these American cars out of here. Make them yourself.

Get all these social media companies Make them ourselves. Get all these products out of Make them ourselves.” Yet at the same time, all our products are being manufactured there because they got the control. So China’s long-term thinking, they’re like, “These people are idiots. ; Mhm. ; We can send hundreds of thousands of people, invest, send them there, bring them to China, indoctrinate them, send them back there to get into politics.

We going to take over US over the next 30, 40, 50, 60 years. They have no clue what the hell they’re doing. ; If you were China, why wouldn’t you do that, right? ; There is a loophole for them, big way. Big loophole. ; It’s so interesting because it’s a flaw in free societies. That fundamentally, if you have a fascist society that can just overlook any of its rights and say this benefits us for the long term, we’ll just do it.

But we do have a constitution, so we always have to revert back to that because anytime you bypass it just based on what you believe the interests of the time are, you have a slow road to fascism. It’s a really tricky thing because in the end of the day, I’ve thought about this. Like, if you just look at population, if if you have a bunch of immigration happening, and you have the population of let’s say just theoretically Muslims in the United States going up.

That is fundamentally changing the face of the United States. At what point do you say, we have to stop this. We have to change it. And so, we’re seeing that now with abuse through, you know, Chinese people being born here. So, it’s it’s a really really interesting conversation. ; lose the clip that you had of Ketanji Brown.

Can you go to it on what her argument was? If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. I’m still locally owning owing allegiance in that sense. ; That’s not allegiance. [laughter] That’s that’s legal jurisdiction. ; Yeah, that is such a ; You’re not You are you’re the opposite of allegiance.

You went over there to commit a crime in Japan showing no allegiance to the local laws. ; Yeah. ; And they bonk you on the head and put you in jail. ; But but but the but the one part that we have to pay close attention to is when I went to Brazil and we were in Brasilia and I’m interviewing Jair Bolsonaro, okay? The interview’s in the third hour.

At this point, he’s emotional. He’s crying. Guy comes in, taps on his back and he’s getting irritated cuz he’s in the middle of a story. He says, “No, we got to go. You’re about to get arrested.” To the end of the interview. I’m like and then they come whisper to me, “Hey, he has to go. They just announced he’s getting arrested.

” I said, “What are you talking about?” “Because of this guy here.” “Why?” “Cuz they have control of the Supreme Court.” They have to pay very close attention to what’s going to be happening when they have control. It’s going to happen. When they do, they are way more united than our guys are. Way more united on their ideology.

; Well, it’s a fundamental precept of the left, right? It’s the ends always justify the means. And so, they start from the ends and work backward. And what are the means to achieve that goal? That’s why they’re so in favor of packing the Supreme Court. ; to the next one here. Now, watch this one here.

Supreme Court to review AR-15 firearms, okay? What are you talking about? On Tuesday, said it will decide later this year whether state bans on the possession of AR-15 firearms and similar semi-automatic assault uh style guns violate the Second Amendment. 10 states plus DC banned the weapons, which has been used in many of the deadliest mass shootings in the US history, including again, this is a ABC story.

Including Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 and you’ve all the Texas. So, what’s your concern with this one here, Elon? ; I’m a big Second Amendment guy. I think the data just doesn’t support bans of AR-15s. It didn’t reduce homicide in the states where it was applied. The vast majority of homicide is coming from handguns just off the bat.

And in the conversation of handguns, the vast majority of that is coming from illegally obtained firearms. ; Illegally? ; Illegally obtained. Over 80% of the homicides are from illegally obtained. And that’s where the focus should be because that’s not a partisan issue. That’s something everyone can agree on. Let’s get illegal guns off the street.

Additionally, firearms are a major reducer of crime in in virtually all studies. There’s multiple studies that show anywhere from 1.6 to 2.5 million incidents are prevented because of the expectation or potential that the victim may have a firearm. And when there’s studies done where they question people in prisons, what’s the number one deterrent for you? And they always say that my victim might be armed.

So, I don’t know. We’re going about this completely the wrong way. I very feel that there’s going to be steps on the Second Amendment that are especially as you talk about as the courts become more left-leaning over time. That could really be uh ; Uh enjoy your AR-15 because the moment these guys take control on the left, you’ll see what happened there, Tom.

Why is it if their concern is guns, why is it that Idaho that has 60 plus percent license to carry has the lowest crime in all of America? Why is that? ; Uh it’s because it’s the deterrent. And the statistics show time and again, Idaho ranks 50 out of 50, dead last in ATM and armed robbery muggings. Why is that? Because they have a constitutional carry.

Means if you’re a citizen of a standing, you’re not a felon, and you’re not on probation. Um even if you’re on probation for like reckless driving and DWI, you have to you have to step back from your carry right. But they it’s constitutional carry. And so there’s a 62% chance that you’re robbing someone and they’re going to turn around and say, “I don’t think so.

” Bang. And so and the argument that well, more guns means more crime. No, it doesn’t. It is less crime in Idaho. Less crime. And so when you go take a look and look, here’s the gun homicide rate. ; In city, look by city of gun homicide rate, it’s all left-leaning state if you they go by oh, let’s look at the state.

Look at the cities. ; Look at the 23 out of 27. ; And so now you have gun homicide rate and Idaho’s number four lowest in the nation. And so you when you have a disciplined free uh armed by choice citizenry, guess what happens to crime? Crime goes down. Now, I I’m against automatics. I don’t think you need an automatic to go out and do deer hunting.

Um but I am a Second Amendment person and what they wanted to do with the AR-15, there were there were um uh AR-15, you know, shaped and modeled weapons that were less powerful than the .30-06 that I’ll take out deer hunting. ; Mhm. ; And so the the question is is it automatic or not automatic? I think that should be the thing and we should be very disciplined about um you know, I I you know, where’s criminals get illegal guns will be things that that 2A advocates I disagree with one thing.

I mean, you you you can’t have you you can’t have trunk sales. You you got to have ways ; So few of the actual uh guns that are obtained illegally are bought at like loophole events and and through trunk ; That’s always that’s always a red herring. That’s always I think there just needs to be there just needs to be sensible controls.

Um and and it’s basically do you have an ID, you know, how did you buy that? You know, that that’s very simple to me. You know, not deep background checks that start to be a a hidden ; a hidden cobra ; happen in Chicago if they you know, if they made it available for people to have license to carry? What would happen in Chicago in the next 12 months? ; Springfield, Illinois, passes constitutional carry, meaning just what I said right ahead.

Citizens in good standing can can pack it. Do you know what happened in Chicago? ; happen? ; You would in the in the gangs would still be after the gangs, but perimeter crime would drop. ; Mhm. ; Jeff. ; Virginia. ; What happened in Virginia after the election last year? One of the first things that the new governor did, Spanberger, they went after guns.

I mean, that’s what they’re going to do. Um it is no matter what happens, no matter what studies you cite or evidence or just freaking common sense. The left hates armed population. This is not strictly about crime, is it? We know it’s not about crime. There’s a political angle to it. They’ve always been against the Second Amendment for a whole bunch of reasons.

And so you make that argument and and sensible people will agree with you guys, but that’s not what that’s not where they’re coming from. ; Mhm. ; Yeah. ; They’re This is always ; emotional appeals also. ; Oh, also. ; you don’t care about the dying ; The children. It’s always about the children.

And that’s ; I’m like, I fundamentally believe this will result in less dying kids. That’s my argument. ; the other thing though. They don’t There’s also not enough data and evidence that supports the good guy with a gun, specifically because they don’t track those kinds of stats on purpose, right? You can’t say, “Well, the good guy with a gun prevented this crime because we don’t know if that’s actually the case, even though common sense dictates that it is.

” And in places where people are armed, you have less crime because you don’t even need to own a gun. If if if a criminal like you said, if a criminal is a is afraid that everybody is armed in that population, you have sort of like herd immunity. ; Right. The preponderance of deterrent uh protects the entire populace.

; But it’s not just about crime though, it’s about the government. Like, I don’t trust our government one bit to not overstep our rights when the wrong person’s in power and that’s the reason that we’re the only country in the world with free speech because the same way that people won’t randomly go rob houses in Idaho because they know somebody like half the half the population has guns, the government won’t overstep our boundaries because they know that we’re well armed.

Like I I literally think that we should have the same level of weapons available to us that the military has like to some degree like aside from maybe nuclear nuclear weapons obviously, but um yeah, it’s not an accident that we’re the only country in the world that has um you know, the right to bear arms and the right to have free speech completely without any asterisks next to it.

; Well, if this was a common sense argument about actual data and evidence, there would be no no such thing as gun-free zones, right? Yeah. Which is the most dangerous place. Right, exactly. Also, the very same people who say that they’re not scared of the government and that you should trust it are the very same people who say, well, they’ll look at like reserves where natives are and they’ll be like, they have a right to defend themselves.

They need guns. The government oversteps there all the time. I’m like, you’re making a a pro-Second Amendment argument. You’ve just changed the class of people or the group of people who you you think need defense. But the notion that the government will never come after us, a lot of people changed their mind on that after COVID.

I think that shifted a ; What’s the what’s the likelihood you think the next 10 years Supreme Court, if it’s a majority left, they come after Second Amendment? ; I think it’s 100% because of the first clause. Everybody talks about the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That’s the second clause. It starts with a comma. ; Regulated. ; Why does it start with a comma? There you go. A It’s The Second Amendment says, “Quote, a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, comma, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

” The first point is that the people armed is necessary to deter a dictator returning to their very government. They were worried about an English king coming back. That’s what the Founding Fathers did. ; But that’s what the left accuses Trump of, being a fascist who’s a threat to democracy. ; So so let me ask you when that does happen, how the hell they’re going to confiscate? ; Well, that’s a ; How the hell they’re going to confiscate? Go ahead.

It’s going to You know what’s going to happen? It’s going to be the same exact thing you had as you know, getting rid of 15 illegal immigrants that came here legally. Go ahead. How bad did it look with ICE going after them? How bad do you think it’s going to look? Mr. Ellsworth, we’re here to take your guns. What are you going to tell them? ; tougher counterpoint though, you know what ; I I lost them.

What do you mean you lost them? I don’t have them here. I don’t know where they’re at. Somebody stole them from me. We were robbed. Did you report it to the cops? No, I was afraid they were going to come back and attack me because I got some threats. Where did you get some threats? Random phone calls. I mean what what are you going to do when they come and do? It’s going to be such an interesting battle when they try to come and get How many By the way, how many guns AR-15s, semi-auto How many guns are in the hands of the American people? I saw

the number the other day. ; Hundreds of millions, yeah. ; I think about 300 million. Maybe a bigger number. Can you pull up the number? ; I think it’s like 170 million. ; I’m about 25 of those 300. ; [laughter] ; The thing that sucks though is that it’s ; 500 million. ; a billion owned firearm.

Half a billion guns. ; It’s crazy. ; That’s not enough. ; But the late P. J. O’Rourke said, “When the government comes for guns, they better bring ladders cuz we’ll all be on the roof with them.” ; That’s a great line. ; The difference between that and and the illegal ; immigrants though is this is well documented, especially in the liberal states, which that part sucks the people who did it the right way.

Well, it’s it would be very easy to see how many guns they have. ; it done for for them, but confiscating to me How are they going to do it? I mean go visualize confiscating in Texas. ; I’m visualizing a rural ; Hey, Billy Bob, we’re here to uh take away your shotgun and your ; How about AI law enforcement though? ; It’s not an overnight thing also.

It’s a slow thing on restrictions on certain firearms and then more regulation on the type of magazines you can have. So, over time the limitation on guns gets more and more extreme and then by the end you’re like, “Oh, I don’t know I can own like a Then they say, ‘Oh, you don’t actually have a right to self-defense like Canada said.

‘” ; But, look at what happened in Virginia after they passed the ban, several prosecutors, county prosecutors, state prosecutors, sheriffs said, “We’re not going to enforce the ban. This is unenforceable. There will be a wave of civil disobedience and it will be pretty substantial.

” Um which is one reason why they want to go to the Supreme Court. That’ll be I think that’ll be a way a lot of states will recruit as well. Yeah, a lot of way They’ll recruit. Come here. Come here. You Trust me. Well, can we trust you? We believe you. ; Mhm. ; You you Avoid the blue states. They don’t believe you. They don’t trust you.

We trust you if you want to come here. ; Oh, there Look at the headline. Governor Spanberger signs legislation to protect families, kids, only and kids. ; It’s always about the children. The ones we didn’t abort. ; enjoyed this video, you want to watch more videos like this, click here. And if you want to watch the entire podcast, click here.