All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2022 - Doug Collins Podcast
33:42
They Admit they don’t care about Constitutional Rights
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, I don't know about you, but as you've watched out over the world, the war in Russia and Ukraine is not just isolated to Eastern Europe, it's spread all over the world and you can see it in market instabilities, you can see it here.
People who do not think that that war is affecting you, all you gotta do is look at gas prices, you look at your food prices, you see the global change that has happened.
But you know something that's also affected investments as well, and I've said all along, Legacy Precious Metals is your navigator.
They're the ones that see you through to get to the next level.
The good news about this is, even with market volatility, market instability, you've got options.
And gold prices are rising as investors turn to gold, and gold presents a hedge against this inflation and that protects you against the weakening dollar, which we are seeing.
Legacy of Precious Metals is the only company I trust to deal with gold and silver and the other precious metals.
You need this investment.
You need this as part of your portfolio to keep you buffered from what we're seeing in the world.
War and volatility in the market.
This is where you need to be.
Call Legacy Precious Metals today.
Be proactive about this.
Get on board with it.
Call them at 866-528-1903.
866-528-1903.
Or you can download their free investor's guide at LegacyPMInvestments.com.
LegacyPMInvestments.com.
Your navigator in a volatile world of investments.
Do you want to listen to a podcast?
By who?
Georgia GOP Congressman Doug Collins.
How is it?
The greatest thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
I could not believe my ears.
In this house, wherever the rules are disregarded, chaos and mob rule.
It has been said today, where is bravery?
I'll tell you where bravery is found and courage is found.
It's found in this minority who has lived through the last year of nothing but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being answered, and this majority say, be damned with anything else.
We're going to impeach and do whatever we want to do.
Why?
Because we won an election.
I guarantee you, one day you'll be back in the minority and it ain't gonna be that fun.
It's Doug Collins.
Welcome to the Doug Collins Podcast.
Well, they did it.
The Democrats, again, assault on the Second Amendment is just continuing.
And it's just, it just is really amazing.
This is just hot off the vote last night.
I wanted to get this out to you.
We've been talking about this.
Seems like we've been talking about this for a long time because Every time, and I've made a comment on this podcast before, it's amazing to me that every time someone does something with a gun, they use a gun to commit violence, they use a gun to murder people, they use a gun in an inappropriate way, what we typically find is that the left's answer is to punish legal gun owners.
That's become the theme of anything they do, because at the end of the day, they understand inherently that I think if they would be willing to be honest with themselves that there are laws that on the books, there's the laws that they're trying to pass.
None of these will inherently stop someone who wants to commit a heinous act.
They're just not going to.
Now, I've also been very honest with my listeners here on the Doug Collins podcast and also on my radio show and everywhere else that if the left is going to have to come to that conclusion, that they're going to have to go where they've always promised they never would go and that is where we're going to take guns.
Well, They're back at it now.
They did it in the 90s with the assault ban.
It did not do what they said it would do.
And I think this is an interesting point.
So let's just start off here.
That, you know, they always say, let's go back to the assault ban because all these things dropped and every, you know, all these, you know, mass shootings stopped.
The statistics of death, though, this is the thing that we don't want to cover, because a congressionally mandated study actually showed that the guns that were banned are used in very few deaths comparatively to deaths by...
The violent acts are guns.
I've stated this before.
People, you know, you can go look it up.
It's in the crime stats.
You can see this.
That the guns, especially now, we'll just talk about this, ones that they're wanting to ban, the AR versions, these, quote, semi-automatic that they claim are actually really, you know, weapons of war, assault.
We'll get to that in just a minute.
But they provide or they're used in fewer homicides or murders in this country every year than blunt instruments and knives.
This is just a fact.
The shotguns and rifles that so many times are talked about are...
They're just not used.
I mean, they're used in some of these horrific events that we see, but when you take it into account of gun deaths, and that's your idea now, of trying to cut this back, that is what is actually being used.
Now, let's get back to another setup here.
There's several things that I want to lay the groundwork here for.
The first one is, let's just be real frank.
The Democrats do not care They do not care about the Supreme Court's ruling.
They do not care about the Second Amendment.
They don't care about the Heller decisions.
They do not care.
When it comes to whatever they want, the Constitution becomes malleable at that point, or basically not even malleable.
It just becomes expendable.
They don't care if the Second Amendment says they shall not be infringed.
They seem to run right by the shall not be infringed to say, well, we infringe if we want to, if it fits our political needs and puts our political ideas, then we will infringe upon it.
We don't care if it's a constitutional right.
It's amazing to me That they are just out front.
Now, I'm going to play a clip here from Representative Cicilline, who is actually the sponsor of this assault weapon ban.
He's very blunt.
He uses strong language.
But he just flat out says, I don't care about your constitutional arguments.
Take a listen.
It goes on and on.
So spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.
Will the gentleman yield?
No, I will not yield.
And I'm not going to yield for my entire five minutes, so don't ask again.
Wow.
I mean, is there any doubt?
I mean, Democrats are willing to sacrifice the constitutional amendments that we have if they don't fit their political agenda.
This is the problem that we've had all along, especially with this court in this past cycle, in particular this past month, when you had court rulings in the school choice case up in Maine, you had it in the The prayer case with the Coach Kennedy case.
You had it in the gun case out of New York.
And you had it, of course, in the Hobbs decision out of Mississippi, in which Euro versus Wade was overturned.
Now, this is a...
Just a reoccurring theme.
When they don't like what is happening, the Dobbson case and others here, when they don't like what is happening, they just tend to blame the court.
They blame the interpretation.
They don't like the amendments.
The court is now an activist court because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Now, when it was an activist court implementing Roe v.
Wade, when it was an activist court...
Defining this separation, this wall of separation in the defining of the free expression and the establishment clause in the First Amendment, they didn't have any problem with that.
But when it doesn't fit their agenda, they don't like it.
So let's just lay it out very much up front here that the Democrats do not care about a constitutional argument to what I'm going to talk about here for this podcast and really what was discussed in the committee hearings yesterday.
Let's also take it a step further.
And the Heller case made it very clear that you could not...
ban or take away those guns in common use.
It's a common use term.
Now there's some out there, and I'm going to give a hat tip to my more bent on this.
They don't have to be in common use.
They're part of a constitutional amendment.
But Scalia wrote it.
He reaffirmed it later with Thomas in another decision in 2015. But in the Heller case, he took an old case, the Miller case, and talked about in common use.
Again, Democrats do not care what the Supreme Court decisions say here.
They do not care that they're going to infringe upon a constitutional right.
It's just not in their...
I guess, you know, discernment to care what these constitutional rights are as long as they think they can make them score a political point.
This is the next one is Congressman Bishop asking a simple question about this in common use and basically having what Chairman Nadler will admit is that they're going after these things that are in common use.
They admit that the AR-15s and these kind of weapons that they're talking about are in common use.
Take a listen.
Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?
Would the gentleman yield?
I would, for an answer to that question.
Yeah, that's the point of the bill.
So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you're saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?
Yes, the problem is...
Would the gentleman yield...
Now, I've worked beside Jerry Nadler for a long time.
I was the ranking member of this committee, so I know this committee very, very well.
And I know...
Jerry Nadler does not like to take questions, and Jerry Nadler at times says things that probably his staff would prefer him not to say.
But in this case, he just gave a moment of just open clarity and basically said, yes, we're coming to take guns that are in common use, and we really don't care what the Supreme Court has said about it.
Now, I'm laying all this out for you in a sense because I want you to understand what they're doing, why they're doing it, and to dispel a little bit of this issue.
That this is something that is going to just all of a sudden stop the, quote, mass shootings, these gun events, in which some have used these type of weapons to kill people and to hurt people, innocent people in many ways.
Let's also just be very blunt about this.
There are several states that already have assault rifle bans and assault weapons ban, if you want to put it.
And many of these assault weapons bans come from states where they have these.
It's been the very areas that we have seen these events take place from New York to California and in between.
If it was supposed to stop it, it doesn't stop it.
We understand that.
A criminal...
I can't believe I have to make this point.
A criminal does not care what the law says.
Thus, they're a criminal.
Thus, they will do whatever they want in these times.
If they want to rob a bank, they're going to rob a bank.
If they want to kill somebody, they're going to kill somebody.
If they want to commit an aggravated assault, they're going to commit an aggravated assault.
It's not many times that the law...
You could probably tell them before they did it, you know this is against the law, and they'll tell you they don't care.
The sad part about this is the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee don't care about the Constitution as well.
And I just want to point out this today because this is really, frankly, very disturbing because we've talked about this before on this podcast.
The term assault weapon is not a definable issue.
You walk into a gun store and say, I want an assault weapon.
It's not a term.
It's a made-up term that came from the gun control movement who said that we needed a, they come to the collusion, that they needed a scary title for guns that they wanted to take away.
And if they made them scary enough by sounding like a weapon of war.
Again, if I hear one more gun control advocate or one more Democrat say this is a weapon of war, it's amazing to me.
They hone in on these rifles, but yet so many things are used in the battlefield from handguns that they never talk about.
Again, be very clear when you're listening to this podcast.
The reason they're wanting to use these terms is they're wanting to scare you.
They're wanting to make these guns sound like something they're not.
There's often reference to automatic and semi-automatic weapons in which they will confuse the terms, just like former Governor Cuomo did in New York State when talking about a semi-automatic weapon, semi-automatic weapons, while at the same time showing a video of a fully automatic weapon.
Again...
They don't want you to think in these terms because they want to keep it confused.
They want to make it seem like what they're doing is okay because how could anybody believe that you ought to put one of these weapons that they believe to be a, quote, weapon of war, an assault weapon, however you want to describe it, from being in the hands of the general public?
They say that they have no real use except to kill human beings.
Again, folks, your argument is that the only purpose on these weapons is to kill other people, but yet they're silent, and the silence is deafening when they don't want to talk about what's happening in the big cities in which you have people who have handguns who should not have handguns.
This is the most popular way to kill someone is a handgun.
And you need to understand that clearly.
That is what is used in the vast majority of gun deaths, or deaths caused by gun, is a handgun.
If you make the argument that these rifles were designed to simply kill other people, then why don't you just be intellectually honest here and just say, we're going to ban all guns?
Well, number one, they know they never could get that passed.
Number two, it would never be held up in court.
Number three, it would make them be and seem as extreme as they really are.
They don't want to deal with it.
So they come up with these kind of titles like the Assault Weapon Ban of 2022. I mean, this is a ban on style.
And this is something that I want you to clearly understand here.
Because in this, they describe their assault weapons, their weapons of war, other things.
And here's what they're after.
Because they provide definitions of what...
They're saying is a semi-automatic pistol, a semi-automatic shotgun.
And all you gotta do is read the bill.
This is in the bill.
In fact, most of the bill is taken up with definitions and what is banned and what is not banned.
I thought it was rather funny that Thomas Massey actually pointed out to them that one of the guns that they listed as banned was also listed as specifically not banned in the same bill.
This is how they don't really, you know, want to focus on what they're doing.
But then they get into these kind of things, like large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
They talk about barrel shrouds, which is actually, you know, over the barrel of the weapon, the cosmetic effect of that in use is something that they're saying makes it an assault weapon.
Detachable magazines.
Fixed magazines.
Here's another thing.
A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
In other words, what puts up against your shoulder is they're saying if this is folding, detachable, or in any way removal, this is going to become making this a weapon of war.
A forward grip.
I think a grenade launcher is pretty interesting.
It's actually in the definitional part here, although not a part of any commercial made gun that you can currently buy in this category for the most part.
There's pistol grip, there's threaded barrel, qualified law enforcement, and just on and on and on.
The reason I'm bringing this out, folks, is you've got to understand, if I showed you a picture, and I can, of two basic rifles that do the same thing, They're the same rifle.
But yet if I made modifications, and not modifications in how actually the gun would work, but I made cosmetic applications, if we're talking about a barrel shroud, we put other things on, then all of a sudden I have taken this quote legal gun, long rifle, and made it illegal.
Not because I have made it any more powerful, and not that I've made it any more lethal.
I've not made it any more anything else, except I have made it more ease of use for the user of the weapon, that we're going to actually take this and remove it from the public eye.
Now, this went on and on and on yesterday.
Here's an interesting part, and they don't want to talk about...
Let's get back to real basics for a second.
The semi-automatic rifles that they talk about are simply one trigger pull, one fire.
That's it.
One fire, one pull.
That's it.
It's not fully automatic.
Just like I've heard so many times people get, you know, especially on the left, they start calling out, these weapons can fire ammunition like a fully automatic.
No, they can't.
It's one pull of the trigger, one bullet goes out.
Okay?
So this is, again, how they try to say, we don't like these weapons.
We don't like how they look.
We don't like what they do.
And we don't like the fact that some people have used them in these events around the country in school shootings and other places.
And so we're just going to ban them so that all of that things all of a sudden go away.
No, they're not.
Remember, the Virginia Tech shooter did not have a long rifle.
He used actually pistols and killed a good many people.
It's not the instrument necessarily.
It is how the person who is trained to use that instrument in what is going to actually be an advocate.
Again, what is also funny, and you can look around the internet, and I've done this.
I did this just for fun.
So just look around and talk about what people think of assault weapons or AR-15s or the AK-47s or however you want to do, whatever the one that you're wanting to focus on.
And they talk about it because it's filled from movies.
They talk about they see these actors who shoot from the hip.
They spray out, you know, these, So...
Bullet rounds that are coming, many times, not from the standard AR-15.
They're coming from a fully automatic weapon.
But this is the mindset that we get into, and the left just basically runs with every time they want to come up against this issue.
Now, for many of us, we've always talked about that Democrats want to take your guns, but we never had proof of it over the past few years, though.
That has just been thrown out the window.
They truly want to come after your guns.
And, you know, when you talk about guns and wanting to ban them, and you talk about what they look like, and again, this is what we're dealing with here.
We're talking about how they look.
Not the lethality, not anything else of this weapon.
There are many more that they've explicitly said are okay that could be arguably made more lethal with the projectile and the bullet and the gun itself.
But this is the argument they made, that it looks scary.
It is also the same argument.
I'm going to put this in maybe for terms.
If you're out there and you have not really had a lot of experience with these guns, it's like going up and saying, well, by putting those...
Colors on this car and painting it with these flames, you're now making it a racing style vehicle.
Or if you put these different type of tires on it, you're making it a racing style vehicle.
Again, the vehicle itself operates pretty much the same way.
It has to operate by the way the driver, the rules of the road handling.
But if you're only talking about cosmetics, then you can make anything look bad.
This is becoming...
The whole issue of this assault weapons ban when you look at it in the fact that number one, it doesn't do anything.
Number two, it is not going to affect the vast amount of Especially with firearms in this country because long arms account for 3% at most of the deaths caused by firearms in this country.
So as you look at this bill coming up and coming out, what is the real purpose here?
It is about control.
It is about trying to take a right, the Second Amendment right, that says shall not be infringed, and making you scared of something that will make political points and will hopefully, from their perspective, try to turn a country against a certain brand of weapon, a certain style of weapon, that they inherently know going into
it is not going to fix their problem.
But when you want to make people scared of it, it's real easy to do.
You come up with a scary name, weapons of war, assault weapon.
You start talking about the way they look, hands and pistol grips and braces.
Now, this also gets into bump stocks.
It gets into large, quote, magazine that they clarify how many bullets can the gun carry in a magazine.
They're banning the, quote, large capacities over 10. But there's an interesting part yesterday.
If you really want to know how the rush to achieve an end without understanding what you're doing.
Number one, I talked about with Representative Massey pointing out to them that in one part of the bill, they banned a weapon.
In the other part, they actually said it was explicitly legal.
Again, when you're trying to do amorphous trying to discussion on what is actually legal and illegal, you're going to come up with a place like that.
But then here's one that actually is interesting to me.
They talk about bump stocks and they talk about, you know, being used to, you know, fire weapons faster and making them more like, like, and I love this term.
They always say, well, it makes it like a fully automatic referendum.
No, it really doesn't, but it sounds good.
And that's when you're making your point.
They also had in this yesterday, and it was an amendment offered to strip from the bill or protect, if you would, the idea of a brace, a hand brace that allows those that have a disability or handicap to actually still be able to shoot.
A lot of wounded veterans and others have used this, and it basically, if you were watching me now, you can see it just attaches around the arm, and it keeps the weapon, uh, Stable if they're having trouble maybe with their arm usage or handicap to try and help them use it in hunting or target shooting, however they want to participate.
But it actually helps handicapped individuals use these weapons or use their weapons.
And it was pointed out, and they struggled mightily, if you watch sort of the hearing yesterday, on understanding the difference between the bump stock, which the hand brace is not, or the arm brace is not a bump stock.
They're just not.
The Republicans offered an amendment to strip this or to protect this so that handicapped veterans, many of which use, if they need to, they use these products, they wanted to make sure that, you know, they were treated as equal because, again, I hate to go back to this, but it's a part of our Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment applies to all people whether they have disabilities or not.
But Democrats who often want to talk about taking up for those who need help Rejected the amendment.
With no good reason.
And they're not giving a reason that actually makes sense.
It's not a reason that actually, you know, changes the functionality of a rifle.
It allows, though, it allows someone to use the gun, and who maybe has a disability, to use so in a safer manner, also a more projected manner in hunting, which makes them more able to hunt and kill the prey that they're looking for, whether it be deer hunting or other things.
Again, it's very frustrating here that the Democrats in their pursuit so much to take your rifle away from you because they don't like the name.
They don't like the look of it.
They're going to put restrictions on how a weapon should look.
And they're willing to take it.
That also in this, they're going to sweep up and they're going to scoop up the...
Those devices that actually help some of our folks with disabilities actually participate and enjoy something that they may have enjoyed before their disability, especially this is true with veterans who are coming back from the war, who may have had injuries, they may have had loss of limb, they may have had degradation in their muscle control.
This is what helps them.
And yet Democrats who are so just basically bent on making sure that they get a bill out there that they can use for political purposes.
Remember, Jerry Nadler is up in a primary this year.
And a lot of this just comes in really sad ways because they don't listen or don't understand what they're trying to ban.
I'm going to take another step here while finishing out this podcast.
I want to let you be aware not only of this bill.
I'm a straight shooter when it comes to the likelihood of this bill.
Right now, they're struggling in the House.
They're not sure if it can come to a vote in the House.
The numbers, as you well know, are relatively tight, and there's already been a couple of Democrats come out and say they would not vote for this bill on the floor.
Although we also have a couple of Republicans who say they would vote for it on the floor.
So it may be balancing out, but they may not be able to get to the threshold they need to actually bring this to the floor.
I will tell you, in the Senate right now, there is not 10 votes to pass cloture here from Republicans to pass this bill.
This is a messaging bill that was simply put out there because the bill that we talked about last, well, six, seven weeks ago, and I outlined this for you then, what this bill didn't, you know, why that bill didn't do anything except take away rights of legal gun owners and actually laid the groundwork why that bill didn't do anything except take away rights of legal gun owners and actually laid the groundwork for universal background checks for folks like myself or say to our neighbor or sell it to someone else.
It allowed us to be classified as gun dealers.
All of these are tripping, shipping away at your fundamental rights.
Now, most of them, if they were ever, and this last one was signed into law, I think there's going to be some challenges of that coming, you know, coming forward.
This bill would definitely have a challenge, a legal challenge.
And it'd be interesting where, and I think I know where the Supreme court's going to come down on this, that there is a problem here in just banning this classification, but who knows?
We'll see how this goes.
They feel like the more they can get out there in legislation, the more it'll be harder to get rid of it.
But there's another movement that is going on, and for those of us who enjoy shooting, we enjoy the shooting sports, we enjoy hunting and rifles, is this attack on the manufacturers actually themselves.
Now, we've already seen this up in the Northeast with the attack on Remington.
And we're allowed to, the courts have allowed people to sue the actual gun manufacturer for someone who used, frankly, used their product in an inappropriate fashion.
Gavin Newsom, who is waiting in the wings, you know, just chomping at the bit to run, it seems like, for Democrat for President, has just...
Passed the same thing in California.
We saw a lot of this as a reaction to what the courts did in the New York case, where you can actually sue the manufacturer for the product and saying that this has never been done before.
Gun manufacturers can't be sued.
Put a pin in that one for just a second.
I want to go back also to New York when after the court said that you can't, that the just cause was actually the Second Amendment for those who are applying for a permit to carry a weapon.
New York went back in and actually made it worse and now looking into social media backgrounds and just So many different things now that have been added on to how you would get this permit.
It makes it almost impossible again.
It makes it very arbitrary for the government to not give you a permit in New York State for a firearm.
I spoke to Paul Clement just recently who argued this case before the Supreme Court and won.
We just both agreed that New York was just keeping it going.
It looks like it'll take another trip to the Supreme Court to clarify this.
We've seen it over and over again.
Now, back to the issue of Suing gun manufacturers.
This is one that we need to be watching from those of us who believe in our Second Amendment rights, because if you're going after the gun manufacturer, and there's a lie that President Biden has told and many others have told, saying that the gun manufacturers cannot be sued.
That's just not true.
If a gun manufacturer makes a product that is defective, they can be sued all day long.
What they're wanting to sue on, and they have succeeded in some states that have allowed this, and it has basically dismantled Remington, there's been others that it's causing a very harmful effect.
On those who make these weapons, and that is that I can sue the gun manufacturer for the fact that somebody else did something wrong.
So for instance, if I was at the school at Uvalde, I could sue the manufacturer of the weapon that the young man used, the deranged young man used to go in and kill those students and teachers.
I can sue them, not because the gun worked properly or improperly, but because they simply made the weapon.
Now folks, More people are killed in car wrecks in a year.
There's thousands upon thousands killed in car wrecks.
But yet you cannot sue the car company simply because they made the car.
Now, if the car didn't function properly, if it didn't have a product defect, they've been sued ever since they started making them for that kind of issue.
That is something that gun manufacturers can be sued for the actual product deficiencies that they have.
But think about this.
You're now opening up manufacturers to be sued for people who use their product wrongly.
This is the next step that they're looking at, folks.
I can't make this stuff up enough, but I wanted to give you a quick word here as we go into, right after this has happened, while it's fresh on my mind, I wanted to give you the update on the fact that, yes, the vaunted assault weapons ban bill has passed out of House Judiciary Committee.
It'll be going, if they can get the votes, it'll be going to the House for probably, possibly before the August break.
If not, they'll try to get it back.
In September.
But bottom line is this.
This is not a bill that is truly designed to solve a problem that could be solved.
Because again, they're looking at this from a very narrow focus on the shootings that make the biggest headlines.
The deaths by long arms and rifles in this country are below even blunt force in knives.
This is simply an area where they feel like they can get enough momentum to take a little bit of the second minimum away and feel like everybody will understand because they have now named these weapons, assault weapons, weapons of war, names that people are afraid of.
We're going to keep telling you the truth here on the Doug Collins Podcast.
We want you to understand what is actually happening.
So if you hear this, share it, share the information.
If it goes any further, of course, I'll keep you updated here on the podcast.
But this is one I encourage you to go to the DougCollinsPodcast.com.
If you have questions, please send them emails to me.
I'm getting emails from you and I appreciate that.
But if you also get this, if you already subscribed, thank you so much.
If you could share the podcast with other people in your email group, that would be wonderful as well.
And if you're just coming across this, maybe you looked it up and you found it, I would appreciate it.
We talk about a lot of things here on the Doug Collins Podcast, not from just politics and guns.
We talk about life and hunting and just a lot of different things.
So I want you to be a part.
I want you to subscribe.
And also, if you would, share it as well.
But we're glad to have you here on the Doug Collins Podcast.
Just wanted to give you this quick update of breaking news from overnight.
And I wanted to get it to you out here so you would understand what this assault weapons ban actually is.
It's basically a farce that makes you scared of a certain type of weapon.
In the end, will it actually help?
It didn't last time.
I don't think it'll help this time, but I don't think this one's going to go as far enough to get signed.
But that's it.
We'll see you again on the Doug Collins podcast.
Hey everybody, MyPillow, I just wanted to let you know MyPillow is having the biggest sheet sale of the year.
You all have helped build MyPillow into an amazing company that it is today, and now Mike Lindell, the inventor and CEO, wants to give back exclusively to his listeners.
The Perkow bed sheet set is available in a variety of colors and sizes, and they're all on sale.
For example, the queen size is regularly priced at $89.98, but it is now only $39.98 with our listener promo code.
Order now because when they're gone, They're gone.
You're not going to be able to get it.
These FurCal sheets are breathable.
They have cool, crisp feel.
They come with a 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
Don't miss out on this incredible offer.
There's a limited supply, so be sure to order now.
Call 1-800-986-3994.
Use the promo code COLLINS, C-O-L-L-I-N-S, or you can go to MyPillow.com, click on the radio listener square, and use the promo code COLLINS, C-O-L-L-I-N-S. Lisa and I sleep on these sheets every night.
You will want to have them as well.
They're a wonderful product.
Go right now, either 800-986-3994, code word Collins, or go to MyPillow.com.
Also use the code word Collins to get this discount.
▲
Export Selection