The Only Question Remains… Will We Defend Ourselves?

The worst thing for me that could happen in government is for innocent people, an innocent person to go to jail because of corrupt politicians and corrupt public officials. I cannot stand that, I cannot take it, and again that’s why we help so much with Sam Giraud, an Amish farmer, and two, Sheriff Scott Jenkins from Virginia. He was innocent and I am so grateful that he got his pardon from Trump and I know the Lord’s hand was in that. So okay, I’m sorry, keep going. Nope, no problem at all. So I had a couple of stories from North Carolina.

I know I’ve been following the governor down there, Stein, and his attempts to speak legitimately about undermining the United States in my opinion. But he had, let me get the page back up, he vetoes two bills that would have supported ICE with respect to getting rid of the illegals. And obviously, you know, this is one of those situations where he attempts to use the Constitution to support his argument. He would never use the Constitution in any other case, but it works out well for him in this one because if you don’t get rid of these immigrants and very little of them are going out, I mean, I hate to say it, but it’s a tiny amount of Obama deported 9 million people.

And I don’t know, but we’re in maybe 500,000 or something at this point. And the borders are still open, and there is no wall. And you know, we still have a big problem with this situation. And then we have governors who obviously are working for the enemy. Because in this case, you would want to cooperate with the federal government to get these people out of here if they’re the ones going to put them on the boat to leave. Now if you’re going to get rid of them yourself, you know, you could do what you’re going to do here.

But apparently, there were three bills here, and it required law enforcement to closely coordinate with federal immigration officials. And I read this. There’s a lot of stuff here, but it basically- 2011, the next round of Helene relief passed the state senate. Down to basically, they don’t- the sheriff’s, you know, that he quotes in here and others that he used for support don’t want to hold people longer than what Stein says the Constitution would require him. So his oath of office requires that he uphold the Constitution of the United States. And frankly, he doesn’t uphold the Constitution of the United States in everything else that he does.

And we have another story here, where he vetoes permitless concealed carry. And so, you know, North Carolina had passed both in the House and the Senate, basically constitutional carry, and to be more like other forward thinking states. But as we expected, he had already said he wasn’t going to sign it. And so he doesn’t want the sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. And then he goes on in here to explain that it’s just too dangerous to have people out there without a permit. You know, I kind of like that guy from sheriff to- or that sheriff from Florida to explain to him that you can make all the rules you want about, you know, not being able to carry a conceal without a permit.

And you’ll find that every criminal in your state is carrying conceal without a permit. And that’s never going to change. So I don’t know. Any thoughts you have on that? Yeah, and we’ve seen that before. And I think Sheriff Billy Woods gave a great answer to that. These criminals are still going to get their guns. And the only question remains, will we be armed to defend ourselves? And, you know, only a fool would think that gun patrol laws are going to somehow reduce crime and keep guns away from criminals. Nothing they ever do is aimed at gangs or criminals to be disarmed.

It’s always at us. It’s always at the law-abiding. Why? Because the law-abiding are the only ones that are going to pay any attention to them. You know, when we were fighting the Brady Bill, I would make fun of them all the time. Yeah, these gangbangers and cartels are having a beer on a Saturday afternoon, and they’re counting all their money and dividing up and bagging up cocaine and other drugs and fentanyl. And they’re going, oh, hey, look, you guys, we got the Brady Bill coming out now. Clinton said it’s going to make our country so safe that even the cops won’t need to carry guns anymore.

Pretty good one, huh? Well, darn it, we’re going to have to turn in our guns. Man, we won’t be able to get guns anymore because of the Brady Bill. Oh, man, we’re our businesses is done for, man. We’re done for. We can’t we’re not going to be able to operate. We better save up our money because we’re not going to be able to make any more money off of what we’re doing. See, and folks, what a joke that is. And again, every bit of it is only aimed at the law-abiding. And they still think that they can show some statistical analysis that makes it look like, wow, yeah, we’re going to be safer if we can just get rid of guns.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Mussolini, many other dictators that have always supported gun control, they all did it and they all promised. What did they promise with their gun control provisions? They promised a safer society. The same thing our lying politicians say all across the country. And statistical analysis does not matter. What matters is the law that allows and doesn’t allow that guarantees are right that we were born with to self-defend. Just so happens that best tool is a gun. Yep, founding fathers knew it. And it also needs to be state of the art gun, this idea that there is such a thing as an assault weapon.

I mean, this whole thing is, this story is falling apart. I mean, even the dumbest of dumb people can now understand that when they tell you that we need to make certain that we have a concealed carry permit to keep criminals from carrying concealed, no one can believe that anymore. I mean, maybe some of those mothers that can’t think that run around in little red outfits supporting socialist ideas and want to disarm America through somebody like Kathy Gibberts or whatever, they promote this stuff and they do get a hold of some people’s heads.

But in fact, we can see that what they’re attempting to do is to make it so that the citizen is not able to defend himself and requires hospital or a funeral home in any given situation where he’s waiting for or she’s waiting for a policeman to show up. And many times, you know, you can’t really depend on the police. I mean, not even if they get there. Well, the response time. Yeah, response time is reason you can’t. Yep. So in fact, there was a girl that got killed in Salt Lake City way back when when I was a cop in Provo.

And the thug actually hung up on the 911 operator. He grabbed the phone from her, hung the phone up and killed her and left. And they never caught him. That’s funny. Not funny, but, you know, well, yes, it’s funny how you look at it. You know, it’s it’s ridiculous that the opposite side says, oh, she she would have been. Yeah, well, she would have been killed anyway or whatever. But the thing of it is she had no gun and and they’ll say, oh, well, it would have been worse. He would have taken it from her and killed her with that one.

Statistical speaking, statistically speaking, that has already ever happened. Even the lady in the wheelchair who was packing underneath her the blanket she had on her lap, she was able to defend herself. In my book, The Magic of Gun Control, Mama Shot Them is the name of the chapter. What a tremendous story because she never shot a gun in her life, but her boyfriend was out of town or left her. I think they split up and he forgot his gun. And when two thugs came in to burn them out and kill her daughter, who was a witness against them in an existing case, all she did is grab the gun, point and shoot.

Guess who won? She did. She shot them both. One died out on the lawn and the other one got away when was picked up at the hospital because he almost died. So, folks, all of this, again, statistical analysis, some of these stories are great and they’re fun to talk about. But statistical analysis does not equate to constitutionality. Agreed. [tr:trw].