Air Date: April 23, 2003 557 lines.
Not be that hardcore, but he knows what's going on.
Larry, thanks for joining us via ISDN via stereo line.
It's like you're in the studio.
There's a lot going on.
Can you give us the skinning on what's happening?
Well, the most recent development, you've already mentioned, I think, is the Bush gun ban.
He wants to team up with Dianne Feinstein.
And when we learned about that, our mouths dropped open.
What in the world would be the political advantage?
Forget the Constitution, because we know what regard that's got here in town, but to
It suggests that the thing that put him in the White House is now an issue that he wants to flip over on the other side on.
It was the perception, correct, that Al Gore wanted to grab your guns that made the yellow dog state of West Virginia go Republican.
And it sounds like the thing that did his daddy's political career in, saying, vote for me, I'll cut your taxes, and then raising them.
It's that same lying instinct.
Well, it's very perplexing because both of them, I guess, got a little heady when they had a successful war going on.
Ratings are high, and Bush 1 told Republicans, when he wanted them to vote for the tax increase, just blame it on me.
Well, they did, and he took it right in the head, politically.
And if Bush thinks that his popularity will endure an assault on guns the same as a, you know, if he wants to team up with Charlie Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, not to mention Hillary Clinton,
I don't think he's going to like the outcome.
Now, Barbara Boxer is more conservative than Bush, in reality, on the gun issue.
She said arm all pilots.
That showed Bush didn't want to arm any of them, so he said, okay, jump through a hundred flaming hoops, you might be able to have a gun.
In my Democrat-Bureaucrat, Tommy Thompson says you can.
So, this is the reality, and now, I talked to you a few weeks ago, and you said you had your lawyers, your constitutional scholars, there in D.C., looking at the Patriot Act.
I read the analysis last night.
It's worse than my analysis.
It's on InfoWars.com.
We now have your analysis posted, a hyperlink directly to it, on InfoWars.com, or you can go to GunOwners.org.
Well, the advantage we had is that the particular individual that ended up doing this had worked in the Senate for perhaps a quarter of a century, and he now does consulting, and we're fortunate to have him.
I don't know.
What was being said, if all you had was the bill itself in front of you, you really didn't have enough.
My analysis is six pages long, and I give the subsection where they say, you don't have to commit a crime, we'll secretly arrest you, you'll never be seen again, secret executions, basically gun owners are going to be terrorized.
You guys have written an analysis that says the same thing, in fact even worse, can be secretly arrested, never seen again.
On page six it says, here's the bottom line at its lowest common denominator, a native-born American could be stripped of his citizenship and permanently and clandestinely detained in a secret location without charges and without an attorney, if he, and then it also says later you can be secretly executed.
That's what it says in the bill.
And in here it says, basically, engage in terrorist activity
We're good to go.
And even if they were nice to you and let you out after a couple of days, because you had been suspected of being a terrorist, they would have taken a DNA sample and added it into the national database that they're building.
Oh, and then they say, oh, well, we're not really trying to pass this.
USA Today last Wednesday, Bush wants DNA database for all, not just criminals or those that have misdemeanors, but anyone who's ever arrested, including a traffic stop.
They want to slurp your blood.
And now I have the articles from Oklahoma, from Arizona, from Colorado, where they say they're going to have roadside checkpoints taking our blood.
Does that sound like a free country, Larry?
I think what we need is to take the DNA of all politicians and leave the rest of us alone.
They've got it backwards.
The people are not supposed to be transparent.
The government is.
And there's not supposed to be that much government, so you don't have that much to look through anyway.
Well, it's a giant analysis of the Patriot Act.
Second Amendment points.
Key areas that Larry Pratt's constitutional scholar found.
It was a very impressive job.
This guy not only is good at analyzing bills, he's good at writing them, and he's
He knows the rules of the Senate, I think, better than any senator.
Several years ago, there was a filibuster going on that the Republicans were leading when there was still some willingness to try to throw roadblocks up.
Bobby Byrd was the majority leader at that time, and when he came into the chamber and saw the
I think so.
He doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
If there's any ambiguity in the language...
He has learned over the years that that ambiguity will always be exploited by the guys that have the most guns.
Well, let me give you an example.
You know, I read the first Patriot Act, and frankly, I was one of the first people, like two days after it finally was made public, as Ron Paul said, they weren't allowed to read it.
They were told at midnight, pass this, the Democrats.
Republicans in the House had taken bad stuff out.
The Democrats teamed up with Bush.
Schumer had the really bad stuff put back in.
Again, these two were probably vacationing together, literally.
And it passed and then I went in and looked at the section and on the sunset section it said there is no sunset and it listed the key police state provisions like 213 and others and and and you know I made that point and now I look at the First Patriot Act section 802 says if you try to influence politicians that's terrorism well that's that's Gunners of America.
That's Alex Jones.
You know that's the ACLU that's anybody.
Then it says
Or any action that endangers human life is a violation of any federal or state law.
Well, the new Patriot Act says in a subsection, we have this in my analysis, says it doesn't matter, Section 802, is it strong enough?
We want everything to be terrorism.
We want to be able to grab you for no reason.
And if a cop tells the news where we took you, he gets life in a FEMA camp.
So, this is insane, Larry.
As you know, this is the very definition of tyranny.
What are we going to do about it?
We might point out that there's not a whole lot of difference between the provisions of this act and the way Saddam Hussein was running his little tyranny, or for that matter, the tyrannies of the last century.
This is the provision for a secret police.
When the police do things in secret, that is, by definition, secret police.
And I think we help ourselves to a certain extent by calling things what they are.
And by the way, there may well be some kind of a sunset in that first Patriot Act still because Orrin Hatch wants to take it out.
He's got a bill in his committee that would do that.
Larry, let's be honest.
They're using that goodwill.
In the election, they're going to say, who are you going to vote for?
Gore or Stolen Bones?
Or are you going to vote for me?
Ha ha ha!
And I say, let the Democrats in, because that will energize the conservative base in reality and oppose the UN takeover, oppose this whole New World Order.
I think if we put George Bush back in office, he's going to do what his daddy did.
He's going to gun grab.
He's going to raise taxes.
He's going to do all this.
I'm tired of it.
I'm tired of neocons.
You know, Larry, on these big national talk shows, the big establishment ones, they won't, they will tell you you're a liar if you say Bush is supporting Clinton's gun ban.
I mean, it's almost like reality isn't allowed or something.
And I, for one, am sick and tired of it.
I mean, they want to secretly arrest me and they say for crime, not even terrorism now, and I disappear forever.
And by the way, they want my guns.
I mean, that gets my blood boiling, Larry.
It's so much of a police state provision.
And to his credit, by the way, Bob Barr, who did vote for it, now is repenting and says that it's a terrible piece of legislation.
This is Patriot One.
He's obviously had a chance to read it.
But you know, part of the problem, and where I might disagree with you, is that when you talk about the conservatives being energized, I didn't really see enough of that under Clinton.
Larry, you're up there in D.C.
Okay, Bush is for open borders.
Senator Bob Smith, they targeted him because he was a real conservative.
Got him removed, put the neocon Sununu in.
They publicly said they're targeting Tom Tancredo because he's pro-America.
They're putting hit pieces in the media on him.
Bush said, you're not going to be re-elected.
Uh, because he's for sovereignty.
Uh, Bush is signed on to UNESCO.
Uh, Bush is blocking Dan Burton's Committee of Investigation of Pardongate.
He signed campaign finance reform, where if that was implemented, I couldn't have you on 60 days before an election.
You know, I think we forget here, I don't know, I mean, I mean, I...
I think we got Chuckie Schumer in the White House.
I mean, past the rhetoric, I don't know what we're supposed to do.
I mean, this is a nightmare.
Well, at least politically, I don't think they're going to be able to budge Tom Tancredo, nor get him out of office.
The problem that Bob Smith had was that he had left the Republican Party and said some strong truths about them, and then had come back in.
Now, others have done that successfully, but the first test is your first re-election.
Ron Paul actually had run for president as a libertarian and then had come back in and gotten elected and the party threw everything at him but the kitchen sink.
But he has his own funding sources.
He didn't have to depend on the Republican Party largesse, and so he was able to withstand it.
In Tancredo's case, he's been re-elected since taking his position.
Yeah, so I think, you know, if they want to fire at him, fine.
They're just going to waste their ammo, and it'd probably be a good idea if they... Oh, I mean, you've got Bush taking millions from known terror sponsors.
That's been all over the news.
Well, I think it's getting harder for them to carry out these campaigns.
McKinney went down.
She was targeted.
Yeah, she's not a conservative, but my point is it's that same dirty trick.
I was just using the example.
But if and when they try that on a conservative, we now have assets that we didn't have ten years ago.
And we're able to communicate directly with the American people, and you're certainly an excellent... So you mean real conservative, real constitutional internet sites and alternative conservative radio shows that aren't the ultra-liberal neocons?
Exactly, and I mean this afternoon, unless they change the schedule, I'm supposed to be on MSNBC.
Pat Buchanan may have a new hour, so I'm going to have a shot at talking about these frivolous lawsuits that are being brought against gun companies.
And, you know, I get to go out on live television, so... If they win one of those, Larry, one of these suits, we're cooked.
And we're cooked even if we don't stop them because these things are absolutely draining these companies financially.
And that, as the head of the NAACP said the other day when he filed his suit up in Brooklyn, we're aiming to break the back of the gun industry.
Yeah, and Cuomo said we're going to kill a death by a thousand cuts.
Clinton said we're going to eat it like an elephant, one bite at a time.
I mean, this is racketeering.
This is criminal subversion.
We'll be right back.
I really do appreciate Larry Perrette, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, joining us at the website GunOwners.org.
I appreciate gun owners because they'll put out an alert and tell you what the gun bills are.
The NRA won't really do that on most gun bills and just let them pass.
And I guess supports S-22 that will register all gun owners.
And Larry told us a few weeks ago that he was on that it actually has a total information awareness network clause to spy on gun owners.
So it's worse than I had first thought.
And I guess I just want to punish the neo-con-Republicans.
I want... Because they're worse than Democrats.
They get more through than Democrats.
And conservatives go to sleep and allow it.
But Larry, you're saying that you've seen the real conservatives, the constitutionalists, get really angry about Bush's latest gun grab, trying to reinstate the Clinton gun bill.
What did you see happen?
We had more response to this alert by far than anything else we've ever done before, ever.
People were just, I think they were insulted.
Not to mention anything else that might have been going through their heads.
What in the world?
And we didn't put it quite so tough, but some of the folks have gotten back to us and showed they not only sent our letter, but they sent one of their own.
And it starts off saying, so why don't you want to get re-elected, Mr. President?
Well, I mean, look, he's being hailed by Chuckie Schumer and Barbara Boxer and Feinstein and the million mommy bureaucrats.
I mean, it's disgusting.
It is the most amazing thing.
It doesn't really have any rational explanation that I can tell.
Well, it's a new rule of order agenda, Larry, and you've written about that and you know what's going on.
Frankly, that's all it can help.
It doesn't help Republicans.
It doesn't help conservatives.
It completely neutralizes, to the extent that he succeeds with this,
One of the more effective issues the party had to differentiate itself from the Democrats.
87% of them were pro-gun, won in the 98 elections, and even higher than that in the 2000.
I'm sorry, what was the beginning of your sentence?
I saw statistics of 87% that were pro-gun won in 98 mid-term, and in 2000 it was even higher than that.
It's a winning issue.
It turned about 60 seats in 94.
Clinton was willing to admit 20, but of course we never really trust him for anything anyway.
And we know it turned the presidential election.
Now that's a whole lot of power.
He wouldn't even be in office if it weren't for this issue.
And to go and embrace the opposition to it, it absolutely tells you where he's headed.
I'll tell you, the thing that struck me was he's really thinking like the folks inside the Beltway do, this whole Homeland Security idea, the idea that we want to ban Homeland Security rifles, which is what we're really talking about.
This is a response of a bureaucrat of a control freak.
Larry, let's put it all together.
They got legislation to secretly arrest us for no reason.
Even says you don't have to commit a crime or be a terrorist.
Secretly take you away for your life and put you away.
No one knows where you're at.
And they want our guns with it.
That's exactly what Saddam did.
Well, I guess more lenient gun laws.
That's exactly what Hitler and Stalin did.
So this is bad, this is scary, and even time's up to stay with us into the next hour, part of the next hour.
The toll-free number to talk to Larry Pratt here on the Alex Jones Show is 1-800-259-9231 if you have any questions about there.
Incredible analysis of Patriot Act 2, or the Republican gun-grabbing with the Democrats that's going on, 1-800-259-9231.
Larry, what are some of the other things you want to talk about in the next 30 minutes?
Well, I think we could... I'd like to continue along with this Homeland Security idea and show the mindset, what it's really... It's anti-individual citizen, anti-individual responsibility.
It's a national ID card, thumb scan to buy and sell, Pentagon watching you.
It's a Running Man, Matrix, Brave New World, 1984, Orwellian Nightmare.
Second Hour, I'm angry, you should be angry.
We got Larry Proud on with us.
Stay with us at fullwars.com.
You want answers?
Well, so does he.
He's Alex Jones on the GCN Radio Network.
And now, live from Austin, Texas, Alex Jones.
All right, my friends.
We've got some news on the economy coming up in about 30 minutes.
Also, what's happening in Iraq, the attack on Syria, and Rumsfeld's documents, where he says they want to attack North Korea next October.
We'll be discussing that later in the hour, and coming up in the next segment, we'll be taking your calls.
What did you think when you heard that Bush wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban and all the stuff that that entails and that he supports all these other bills that are going after our guns?
I'm asking the listeners that.
What did you think when I told you six months ago, I told you a year ago he was going to do this in 94 when the reauthorization comes up.
How did that affect you out there and did that make you angry?
800-259-9231 with Larry Pratt in the next segment.
Larry, how are things going with, I know the House passed a bill to block lawsuits against gun makers.
Where is that going?
Will Lord Bush sign it?
That's one measure that we do think he will sign.
He signed something similar as governor in Texas.
His position has been supportive of it.
It's been in committee in the Senate.
The antis will try to mount a filibuster, but I think that can be overcome because I think there are enough senators who, even if they're not pro-gun, they're anti-lawyer.
And this bill has a lot of
I think so.
Well, we've already discussed that it's collusion, it's racketeering.
And when you've got Cuomo, you've got all these other leaders saying, we're going to get the gun manufacturers, we're going to ban your guns by shutting down the manufacturers, death by a thousand cuts, eat the elephant one bite at a time.
That is the definition of racketeering.
They're saying they're going to shut a business or group of businesses down by discriminating and attacking them with frivolous lawsuits.
I mean, it's obvious.
They better give them liability protection, or they're now going to sue the hamburger makers.
They're going to sue Ford when a drunk runs over somebody in the street.
Or the Greens may well decide that they want to target a particular industry, and they're mean enough to do the same kind of thing that the anti-self-defense folks have been doing.
Well, my gun... I mean, if I want to go buy a $400 .40 Cal pistol, now the thing's $700 when it was $400 just a couple years ago.
So we're already seeing the cost of these lawsuits.
Oh, you bet we are.
And the other cost is going to be when you can't find a gun anywhere because a lawsuit in one state resulted in the changing of a policy system-wide.
Eventually, these companies are either going to go out of business or they're going to start capitulating.
And either way, we lose and Sara Brady wins.
And my capitulate, when Smith & Wesson was owned by the Redcoats, they tried to make people sign an agreement to waive their rights just to carry their guns.
They were going to be a shill for the gun grabbers, but luckily we found out and defused that and look where Smith & Wesson is.
Now, they're slightly on the mend, but frankly, I'm not that happy with them because they now are owned by a company that makes trigger locks, and I really don't think I know when I would ever want to use a trigger lock.
If I don't want to use the gun for self-defense, I'm going to put it in a safe.
Well, this is training us to accept biometrics, Larry.
Well, I think that's definitely where they would like to go with it, and one of the things that
Uh, so upset us about, uh, a gun with a chip in it, say, that it was an electronic device, is that that can be scrambled.
And then your gun is simply a three-pound paperweight.
Well, New Jersey passed that smart gun technology.
It was on the governor's desk in New Mexico.
California's probably going to pass it.
And then that'll set the precedent where manufacturers will have to make these, and then it's easy for them to pass it across the board.
We're very close to losing our guns.
We'll talk about the globalist strategy to disarm us, our strategy to defeat them, and we're talking to the head of the real no-compromise gun group, not the Trojan horse gun grabber group.
We're talking to Gun Owners of America, GunOwners.org.
I'm Alex Jones, InfoWars.com is my website.
We'll get to your calls after this break.
How do we get our Second Amendment back?
Stay with me.
He's the T-Rex of political talk, Alex Jones on the GCN Radio Network.
Alright, we're talking to Larry Pratt.
We've got a bunch of callers that want to talk to him, but Larry wanted to get into Homeland Security and this police state mentality and some of the other key areas where they're attacking our Second Amendment.
Give us that key analysis from your expert position there in the District of Criminals in D.C.
and then we'll go to these calls, Larry.
Okay, well let me be real brief.
I just wanted to make a contrast.
The response to an attack on the United States
During World War II.
And it wasn't just Pearl Harbor.
There were Japanese and German submarines that were harassing both coasts.
The Japanese were trying to start forest fires with unmanned dirigibles loaded with fuel.
And the governors responded.
Not by calling Washington and asking for help there.
They figured Washington was out doing what it had to do abroad.
They called on the militia, and they had the militia patrol the shorelines, and actually, the Civil Air Patrol was part of that militia movement, looking at the coast, flying out a little bit into the ocean.
If you didn't have a gun, they'd hand you one.
And today, it's, oh, we need your guns, we've got to have armed police searching you.
We're going to leave the border wide open.
It's obvious they're using it as an excuse to crack down on us.
Only the experts need to be involved in self defense 60 years later.
This is a government problem.
And of course, even if you just accept what they're talking about, how is it that if a large bureaucracy, the FBI and the other
Police agencies like that here in Washington were incapable of handling September 11 and completely missed them.
They were out looking for guys like you and me in the vast right-wing conspiracy because Reno had so directed the FBI and really made them politically correct.
And so the plane loads of victims flew right by their nose.
They never had a clue.
And when Patrick Leahy, Senator from Vermont,
Ask Ashcroft, prior to the enactment of Patriot One, what are the powers in here that would have been used to stop September 11?
He said, none.
Oh no, they told us now that they've taken more liberty.
Oh, get ready for even bigger attacks!
And somehow we were supposed to believe that the ineptitude of a large bureaucracy was somehow going to be relieved by making it even bigger!
And you have unlimited power.
Sounds like a good idea.
That's a great point, though, Larry.
In World War II, they handed out guns.
We didn't have one.
They had the people defend the border.
Now you go down to defend the border.
The police will arrest you.
I drive through checkpoints.
They search my car internally, but there's no one on the border.
This is pathetic.
You know, it would be so simple to even make do, perhaps, with the existing Border Patrol forces that they have, if they would use the same technology they're using to try to seal borders in Afghanistan and work with our troops in Iraq.
Those Predator drones would be just excellent.
But let me tell you the scam.
Warner, you know, the Senator,
Well, what is he, defense chairman right now over the committee?
Armed forces, I guess.
Yeah, he came out and he said in the news, he said, no, I want drones to watch U.S.
And then they came out and they said, OK, well, what we're going to do is we're going to go ahead and we're going to say it's for the border.
It's the same story.
It isn't going to be for the border, Larry.
Well, I missed what Warner said.
I'm not surprised that he said it because he's really a New World Order type.
Well, anyway, why don't we talk to the callers?
Let's see how they sell it to us.
We're about to go to Brisbane, hung up.
Let's talk to Sylvester in South Carolina.
Sylvester, you're on the air.
Go ahead, Sylvester, you're on the air.
Good morning, Mr. Pratt and Mr. Jones.
Look, I'd like your opinion.
There was an article in a little paper, a small town little tape, and it was written by Robert Novak.
It's all about this bill that we've been talking about, the lawsuit bill.
Congressman Paul, I happen to disagree with him, but he made his argument based on his understanding of the Constitution.
I disagreed with him, particularly on the federalist angle, because I think letting a state determine what all states do is not federalism.
But that was an honest disagreement.
He's arguing that states should pass bans on suing.
And that was the rest of his argument.
But how are you going to say that Ron Paul is anti-gun when he's the guy that has the legislation introduced that would do away with federal gun control?
That's a hard sell, and that's not going to go down in his district.
I know that district, and I've talked to the office since that.
He's right down the line.
He's got a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve, get us out of the U.N.
He's got bills to repeal all the gun laws.
And so he's saying, hey, this is more federal control.
And I've read the bill.
It does have some holes in it.
But we have got, look, I've got criminal charges against those that have called for racketeering and going against gun manufacturers.
They have said it's a conspiracy, Larry, to shut down the Second Amendment.
So I don't know why they're still walking around.
They're not behind bars.
They have absolutely done that.
The attorneys general at one point under Clinton,
We're doing the same thing.
We're in an open conspiracy.
But of course, they're above the law, so RICO wouldn't apply to them.
It just applies to pro-lifers, and if gunnies ever had enough demonstrations to really bother them, they would do the same thing to gun owners.
So anyway, I think the NRA is... I'm not quite sure why they're that piqued with the congressman because they had a zillion and one votes.
They're opposing Ron Paul, didn't hold him up.
And so it's some petty issue.
They can now attack a real conservative and go after one of their real enemies.
I guarantee you, if they try something against him, it will be fruitless.
That man is so... He has been able to effectively explain to cotton farmers why the subsidies they've been getting are not good for them.
I mean, this guy is a very effective and articulate spokesman.
Yeah, he certainly is.
We've had him on many times.
We support him.
Yeah, there's one thing I have to say about this.
In my opinion, in other words, the federal government, you know, I'm in, I'm in agreeance with what he says.
The federal government is trying to run the state.
Well, and... Isn't that the issue that he's against?
Of course, and... They already are, though, so we're just going to the federal government and saying, okay, then you can't go after gun makers.
You can't say that I can't have a gun in Virginia because of a lawsuit you had in Brooklyn, New York, which is the ultimate impact of what... And this becomes a larger, I guess, kind of preemption debate.
Thanks for the call, Sylvester.
Fred in South Dakota.
Fred, you're on the air with Larry Pratt.
How are you doing, gentlemen?
I've got two questions, essentially.
The first one would be, I tuned in a little late, and I was wondering how far this S-22 has gone in their greasy little legislation, if it is law or whatever it is.
And the other question is, Mr. Pratt, you've lived in Washington for a time.
And it's been my experience that I've lived from one coast to the other coast in this country.
And I've seen that even, I can think way back when they were just getting rid of the cattle guards.
In the West, people didn't realize that they were pieces of steel grating to keep cattle in a particular area.
There were people in areas that actually believed that it was a human being that was being laid off.
People back here were thinking, well, I wonder how they dress cattle guards out there in the country.
Yes, it was amusing.
But the point is, are they that far out of touch?
They're dismally out of touch?
Oh, of course.
And do you believe in your heart of hearts that
The day's coming when they start like this S-22 business.
They're going to be in for a surprise.
They didn't plan on it.
Well, let him answer it.
I mean, I can real quick say that thing passed the house last year.
The session ended.
Now it's back.
Where is it right now, Larry?
A component of it did.
Perhaps the nastiest, which is the so-called Our Lady of Peace, which would allow the psychiatrist to determine who does or does not have a gun.
But it's part of a larger bill that would put gun shows out of business and do all kinds of things.
It's kind of the omnibus barf bill.
And that is happily not moving at the moment.
It's still to be heard in committee, but of course with Bush shaking things up, it's going to embolden the other side.
Yeah, that's Bush giving aid and comfort to the enemy Democrats.
Well, there's all too much truth to that, I'm afraid.
You know, you guys are older than I am.
You're telling me people in D.C.
thought they were
When they were taking cattle guards out of the highways, they thought they were firing an actual guard?
Well, actually, I talked to a congressman that had beaten George Bush.
I'm struggling to remember his name.
He was a very conservative Democrat.
And he told a joke without ever saying the word Bush, but he talked about this Connecticut Yankee that had been driving on his limo along the Texas road and he got lost and he asked for directions.
I don't think so.
I heard that.
Hey, but here's the deal.
For those that don't know, in case a cattle guard has bars in the ground so a cow won't step on it because they look for holes in the ground, it won't walk across and leave your land so the gate can be open so you can drive onto your property.
For those that didn't know, the Second Amendment is an individual right, too.
Yeah, I know.
A lot of it is just these people are just delusional silver spoon morons.
And that's a big part of our problem.
We'll be right back with Larry Pratt's final segment, War Calls.
Well, Larry Pratt's going to be on MSNBC this afternoon with Pat Buchanan.
I hope he mentions not just the suits of the gun manufacturers, but
Well, I think there might be a way to slip it in, and that would be to point out that
Uh, maybe these lawsuits won't make that much difference if Bush ends up banning our guns anyway.
Well, that's, you know, that's the way the media controls things, is they'll tell you, because I've been on Good Morning America and all these shows, not as much as you have, obviously, and they'll tell you that you're talking about this issue, this alone.
Well, how can you talk about an issue without connecting it to everything else?
Well, at least with Pat Buchanan, I'll probably have a chance to get a word in edgewise if it's something critical of Bush.
Now, is press on that show?
Now, there's an aggressive liberal.
He's a piece of work.
He's extremely personable and friendly when you're off camera.
As soon as the camera's on,
I have a question.
In 1776, did we vote King George off this continent?
And when are you going to start telling people to do what they need to do, versus just being informed?
Because informed people can be moved aside just as well as uninformed people.
Well, did you hear what Paul said, that the Founding Fathers revolted over much lighter forms of oppression, but right now we've got to educate people.
I have to agree with you, Alex, that people were willing to
Well, let's put it this way.
Let me make an anecdote to give you an answer.
They were enforcing Patriot Act-like activities.
Well, indeed they were.
Before the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Pastor Clark, Jonas Clark, had been asked by someone, well, would your men fight?
And his answer was, well, of course they will.
That's what I've been preaching.
Well, have you heard that being preached in very many places?
No, we've got them telling us.
The Baptist Church here in Austin says, turn your guns in.
Good point, Bruce.
I appreciate the call.
We've got to educate folks first, and we've got to take our country back, and we've got the Republic now.
It's this group of scallywags that have taken it over.
George in Tennessee, you're on the air.
Hello, this is George from Texas.
Okay, doesn't matter.
Yes, Mr. Pratt, I'm honored to be a new life member of your organization.
I've done my part.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that plug.
By the way, people can find out how to do that at gunowners.org, or they can call our toll-free number, 888-886-GUNS.
888-886-GUNS or gunowners.org.
Real quick, George, any comments?
Yes, I was involved in George W. Bush's 1994 campaign for governor and I distributed a lot of his yard signs and bumper stickers.
Well, it does matter you're from Texas then, okay.
And I did get a personal commitment from him face-to-face when I talked to him because I did get a chance to talk to him about the gun issue.
That he would never betray the gun owner and I think he might be getting some bad advice.
He may not be aware of what...
Some of the people are going on underneath him.
Oh yeah, maybe Skull and Bones is a crushing organization too, George.
Well, Alex, I agree with you on everything about Mr. Bush, but I think on this issue, he may be being betrayed.
I got you.
Bad political advice.
For even if he wants our guns, it's a stupid move.
Thanks for the call.
Yeah, I agree.
Michael in Kentucky.
Michael, go ahead.
You're on the air.
Hey, Alex and Larry.
I hope I can use your first names.
You better call me Lord Jones!
You know how Southerners are and there are politeness sometimes.
It took me a while after I found this out to sneak in, but if you read the original intent in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, they're kind of misnamed.
They're actually the Bill of Restrictions.
I'm trying to be polite, too.
We're not as polite in Texas.
I need to know what your point is because we're almost out of time.
I'm trying to say that when we say that these things are rights that are in the Bill of Rights, it's actually a restriction on the government.
And when you think about it that way, everybody's kind of looking at them the wrong way.
And the Supreme Court's
Uh, rule them on them back.
Thank you, Michael.
You know, that's a good point, Larry.
These really are restrictions on them.
The whole Constitution was set up, uh, to make it clear what the government could do.
Wasn't very much.
And just in case somebody didn't get the idea from the main body of the Constitution, they gave us the Bill of Rights.
And I think the Tenth Amendment is perhaps the most important.
So is the ninth.
Uh, that phone number again.
Uh, triple eight, double eight, six guns.
That's eight, eight, eight.
Eight, eight, six.
And that's where you get on our email list.
Great email list.
Soviet Union America, wouldn't you say?
Very, very bad comparison.
Well, fair comparison, but yeah, sobering.
Yeah, you mean scary.
Well, you've written a great analysis of your constitutional scholars, and we appreciate you, and thanks for coming on.