All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2022 - Doug Collins Podcast
41:34
RED ALERT: They are looking to take your Gun 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.
Gold prices are rising as investors turn to gold, and gold presents a hedge against this inflation and protects you against the weakening dollar, which we are seeing.
Legacy 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.
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.
Hey everybody, it's Doug Collins.
Welcome back to the Doug Collins Podcast.
A lot going on in the world right now.
One of the biggest is coming not only from the Supreme Court, but it's also coming in legislation.
And it's just evolving, and that's the issue around the Second Amendment, around guns, gun ownership.
Who can own them?
Who can't?
What can the government do?
How can they restrict it?
And throw on top of that, you know, you've had the mass shootings in Buffalo and in Texas, and, you know, especially what we've seen in the response, especially at the Uvalde school.
It brings a lot of these questions into just the mind of saying, what is actually out there?
What's doing?
I've always said, as you know, here on the podcast, that it's amazing to me that anytime something happens with a gun, the first reaction from the left is to go take and restrict legal gun owners' rights while not doing anything about actually fixing the problem.
Today on the show, we got Eric Pratt from Gun Owners of America, a good friend.
He's been on the show before.
He's been on the radio show.
We've talked a lot about this.
We're going to break it down a little bit deeper than just the headlines because I think it's important for you to understand some of the problems that we're seeing and some of the bills that are being passed, these rush to judgment bills, what I call them.
And I had to deal with this in the Judiciary Committee's ranking member with Jerry Nadler over and over and over again.
And then this new assault weapons ban, plus really the overreaction of New York State to the Supreme Court case on the carry permit issue.
So we've got a lot to talk about.
Eric, welcome back to the podcast.
Hey, thank you so much for having me.
Great to be with you, Doug.
All right, well, let's do something.
Let's start back at sort of the reverse.
Uvalde, of course, Buffalo and others sort of highlighted this again.
Congress got to do something.
They got to do something, got to do something.
The first iteration of this was really before even the Supreme Court case, and I want to get to that in just a minute.
But this idea of this, quote, bipartisan gun bill.
Really, at the end of the day, number one, from my perspective, didn't do anything to take any of these shootings, would have not touched them at all, but it actually had a lot of really problematic issues.
Give me your take on it, and then let's dive into a little bit of it.
Sure.
Well, I think you said it well.
Nothing that is in there is going to make people safer.
It's actually going to endanger innocent gun owners.
First of all, it gives millions of dollars to encourage states to pass red flag laws, otherwise known as gun confiscation orders.
Sadly, wherever these laws have been passed in the states, it's resulted in innocent people having their guns confiscated illegitimately without due process, and yet you see state after state after state that's passed these laws already, and it hasn't stopped mass shootings from occurring.
The July 4th shooter is the most recent example in Illinois.
So anyway, that was troublesome to see, all this tax money being spent to encourage states to pass more of that.
And then maybe the other really big thing that was in the bill was a backdoor gun owner registration bill.
When Joe Biden was in the Rose Garden bragging about getting this bill passed, he said...
Even if you sell just one of your private guns without running it through a universal background check, you could be violating the law and go to jail.
What they are after with this is universal registration.
They didn't advertise this as universal background checks, but they got it in through the back door by basically saying if you even sell one of your privately owned guns, You have to become a dealer.
In other words, get an FFL, become a dealer to then sell it using a background check.
That is ultimately what this administration is after, is registering every gun owner, every gun, and you also see that in the executive actions that they've been taking.
So anyway, a lot of problems with this bill.
Already there's been legislation to repeal it.
Obviously it's not going to go anywhere in this term, but that's something that we're going to be pushing hard after the November elections.
Let's take this a step further because, I mean, a lot of people have talked about the red flags and how they've, you know, frankly, July 4th, I mean, even Uvalde, even, you know, they just, I mean, There's already laws in place.
If you're concerned about somebody who's acting irrationally toward themselves or to others, the law enforcement has a way to deal with those already.
I mean, there's set in place.
It takes a good due process, but they can get it done, and they can get it done quickly, so that's not an issue.
This issue, though, that I raised, I felt, I did an episode on the podcast.
I did like two or three days on my radio show.
I wrote an op-ed, by the way, that Fox and others would not pick up my op-ed on this gun bill.
Because I highlighted, one of the biggest issues I highlighted was what you talked about on this gun dealer issue.
For podcast listeners, let me explain for just a second, and Eric, jump in here as well.
What happened was is if you were private sale, let's just get to the bottom of this.
They're trying to regulate private sales because this idea of a gun show loophole, all these other things are not loopholes.
They're private sales.
They're not from gun dealers or anything else.
A gun dealer would have to have an FFL, would actually have to have background checks, the whole thing.
They're trying to stop me from selling my neighbor a gun, and that's exactly what they're doing.
And to do so...
What the gun control groups won't tell you is the only way, and it was on Gabby Gifford's group and some others' website basically saying, the only way to actually enforce that is to have registration.
The only way to enforce to know that if I'm selling a gun or it shows up later is to have a registration of that transaction.
Here's what they did.
And Eric, this is just beyond understanding in the Senate how this actually got through.
They took it from what it was basically if you did it for a livelihood or gain profit, the two prongs here, and they took out basically livelihood.
They took out basically what we'll call the financial gain part and only said if you have a profit, and even basically they gutted it too, Tell people how this really is going to affect, because I'm not sure even to this date, John Cornyn and some of the others actually looked at this bill.
This was the best sleight of hand by the Democrats on gun control in 50 years.
You're absolutely right.
It was really disgusting what happened.
Basically, the only way that you could get around this provision that we're talking about is for you to give away your firearms, which you might do as a dad or a grandfather and, you know, passing them out to your children and grandchildren as an inheritance.
But otherwise, you're absolutely right.
If you make a profit On your gun, then they'll come to you and say, well, did you have an FFL? And if not, you're in big trouble.
You know, Senator Chris Murphy, who was, of course, one of the guys on the left who was spearheading this and was working this with Senator Cornyn, Republican of Texas, as the bill was being passed, he went on MSNBC and he said that this provision alone, the one that we're talking about, is going to cause thousands of more gun sales in the country to go through the background check system.
And that's ultimately what the dream of the anti-gun left is, is to register every gun sale, every gun in America.
ATF has already admitted that they have almost 900 million records that are digitized.
They have almost a billion records and 900 million are digitized.
So pushing for more gun sales to have a 4473 form gives the ATF a record of almost every gun sale and provides them the list that, let's face it, that can become a future gun confiscation list.
Yep.
And it's not, again, this is, and the left always says, oh, you're making too much of this.
It's not, you know, look, why would it?
I mean, it's making the case that you trust the government who acted.
Now, let's go back in this because I was in Congress.
I know how this acts.
If you get an emotional issue, everybody don't want to touch.
They don't want to deal with the details.
They'll pass something without looking at it, hoping that the details will just fall into place.
And this is just not one of them that's going to fall into place because legitimately this could be used.
And we're seeing it.
You know, what's concerning for me is the use of these records.
What would happen in a state or a locality that is definitely anti-gun in which they access these records from ATF and said, look, in our state, we're getting ready to say for an assault weapon.
We got a mandatory buyback plan.
We now have a list, which they already have from gun dealers that will start showing up at your doorstep.
And if you don't believe it can happen, listen to the rhetoric.
Listen to what they're saying, Eric.
Again, it was amazing to me that, number one, Fox and most of the media agencies would not pick up my op-ed, would not talk about it, and they just wanted to ignore it because they were so afraid of getting on to the, quote, wrong side of this issue that we just gave away They just gave away just so much in that little bit that it's almost going to be impossible to put back in the box.
Yeah, and just to your point, there are voices calling for gun confiscation.
New York Times and the Washington Post have called for gun confiscation of the so-called assault weapons, AR-15s, commonly owned firearms all across America.
New York City has already done what we're talking about.
They registered long guns in the 1960s and promised gun owners this will never be a confiscation list.
This is only to fight and combat crime.
Well, guess what Mayor David Dinkins did in the 1990s?
He took that registration list and they used it to confiscate the so-called assault weapons that were lawfully owned, legally bought.
So they broke their promise to law-abiding gun owners and they sent police to people's doors who weren't complying with the ban, people who weren't saying, yeah, we're destroying our guns.
They sent police to the door to confiscate those guns.
We've already seen it happen.
Of course, we should never forget what Senator Dianne Feinstein said on 60 Minutes in 1995 after the first semi-auto ban.
She said, if I could have gotten 51 votes to go in and take all these guns away, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.
She said, but the votes weren't there.
So, you know, they're being very strategic.
The left is being very strategic.
They know they can't get to gun confiscation right now.
They can't.
You know, they speak glowingly about what Australia did.
They know that the American people and even the Congress isn't ready for that.
So they are setting the table for that.
And that's why ATF... Is doing their best to digitize so many records and why the administration is now pushing so hard along with the leftists in the Congress and even the willing idiots on the Republican side that help them do this to further register even more firearms.
That's all getting it set for one day when they do think they have the votes, they'll come get your guns.
Well, Eric, let's take it a step further.
You know, because, again, a lot of times people, you know, we'll talk about this, and in this episode, you know, get it out to all of your membership.
I know we're going to get it out, and we want everybody to hear this.
Because it's so many times we talk about the list, and sometimes the left, and even some of the, quote, moderate right.
They'll roll their eyes a little bit.
Let me bring this very...
I think is...
I don't think this is a...
What I'm going to say is an exaggeration.
If it is, you'll tell me.
But the issue here that passed the confiscation route.
Now, let's take this a step further.
If you have an FFL, you have a responsibility, number one, to get the background check.
You have a responsibility for the forms.
You have a responsibility to do all the things, check all the boxes for a legal gun sale.
And if you don't do those things, you are liable, not only civilly and criminally, but civilly to the actual, you know, to people to sue you for not doing it properly.
Here's what's not been said, and I've not heard a good conversation about this because I don't think they want to talk about it.
If I sold you a gun, because we have no familial connections, this will be me and you selling the gun, and I made $1.
That was my profit.
I did not get...
a background check on you or didn't check your concealed carry law whatever you go out and shoot somebody tell me why this law now does not open me up to be sued civilly for what you did Oh,
you've totally now opened yourself up, and there will be enough stories, even though this won't be a frequent thing, it will happen enough that it will scare everybody into not transferring a firearm without a background check.
Transferring a firearm, which is something we've been able to do since...
Before we were even a country, we've been able to do this for over 200 years.
Make our own guns, sell our guns.
We didn't even have background checks until the early to mid-90s.
People have been doing this for hundreds of years, and yet now Even though you're selling to a law-abiding person, there's that outside chance.
And let's face it, that could happen with anything.
You could sell a car to somebody who uses it then to, you know, illegitimately run people over.
Kind of like that guy in France did.
We've had people, you know, the Wisconsin Waukesha guy who ran over a bunch of people at Parade.
I mean, people do that.
Well, should you be liable if you sold that person that car?
I mean, I've got, you know, you could you don't even have to be 16 to own a car and then sell.
You know, maybe, you know, I've got actually teenagers that enjoy buying cars.
They fix them up and then resell them.
You don't even have to be 16 to do that.
And yet you could be liable because you sold it to somebody who used that instrument to hurt somebody else.
It's, you know, absolutely outrageous what is happening here.
But see, this is the chilling effect because they won't be going after the car sales.
No, they'll come after the gun sales.
And then people are like, you know, I'd love to sell you a gun, but, you know, I'm scared, you know, they may eventually come after me.
So that just brings it to a halt as far as doing it.
Without background checks, and now it's all going to be funneled through the background check system with 4473 forms.
That's the registration they're looking for.
And again, this is the concerning part that I'm not sure even a lot of gun owners who quote follow this are following that liability trail.
Since we're here, let's take off on it because it comes into a different play.
And you hear this all the time from especially the far left and gun control groups all the time.
And you've heard it from the President of the United States on multiple occasions in this area of liability.
And he's wrong every time he says it, but nobody will challenge him on it.
And that is that gun manufacturers cannot be sued.
If a gun manufacturer makes a product that is defective and doesn't work right, they can be sued all day long, twice on Sunday, just like everybody else.
What they're banned from being sued for is you using the product in a wrong way.
It's like, for instance, being a drunk driver and suing Ford because your car didn't work right.
This is getting more and more play.
And you're seeing it in states where states are allowing this.
California just passed their law.
I mean, our friends over at the National Sports Shooting Foundation who represents the manufacturer and everybody, they've been concerned about this for a while.
Eric, from a gun owner perspective, though, this to me is not just what we talked about about private sale, but now this opening it up and liberalizing this discussion on suing the manufacturer, not over defective parts, not over anything else, but the gun itself being used in a criminal act.
We saw this on the House Oversight Committee just a couple weeks ago.
How concerned should we?
Because if you start losing manufacturers, then that's the way to go to a total gun-free society, if that's what their dream is.
Exactly right.
I mean, people should just ask themselves, do I like buying new firearms?
You know, if all the gun manufacturers have been driven out of business.
Now, right now, in 2006, President George Bush signed legislation protecting gun makers from exactly what you're talking about.
Not from liability if the gun malfunctions and explodes in your face.
No, the gun manufacturer is liable.
But this protects them from liability if the gun is working as it should.
It's just that a bad guy took it and used it to commit murder.
Okay, so that's what they're...
Laid out the case, you know, we don't do this with Ford or any of the other car manufacturers, right?
You know, the car's working fine.
Somebody uses it to drive through a parade.
You don't hold the car manufacturer accountable.
So this is very, very serious because the anti-gun Democrats are talking about repealing that law.
The reason that law was passed is because the left was bringing dozens, scores of court cases, frivolous court cases against the manufacturers.
And even if they lost, it still forced the gun manufacturers to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars defending themselves.
So even if they stay in business, the items that you love to purchase, the new products, the new firearms, they're going to cost a lot more, even if they are able to stay in business because of this legal terrorism that the left...
And Michael Bloomberg was one of the chief ones who was funding these frivolous lawsuits.
Well, the left wants to get back to that playbook, and they're trying to repeal that law.
This is a very serious threat that we're facing.
Well, it is.
And I think this is, and let's take, and I'll use one more example and then we'll move on, is the alcohol manufacturers are not sued because somebody uses, you know, goes out and drinks a 12-pack and then does something stupid.
I mean, you could maybe sue, and here's the interesting thing, and this is why it makes it so much even worse because then you start getting into everybody in the chain, so to speak.
You can sue a bartender for over-serving.
You can sue the company.
But it actually goes back to where you're not going to sue the manufacturer of the alcohol.
What this is trying to set up is you're just going to sue everybody in the chain.
And it allows that.
So it's a problem.
Let's move on, though.
One of the victories that we did have, and let's take this.
I think it's sort of sandwiched in between the...
The, quote, bipartisan bill, which is a train wreck, and the assault weapons ban, which I think, I don't think, I'm not sure the Dems are going to actually be able to get that through the House.
There's a, we'll see how that goes.
But the court case out of New York on the concealed carry, the May versus shall issue, just cause, and where they had, where in New York you had to show just cause.
Well, just cause the Second Amendment said I could, that's why I could have it.
That was a great case.
Talk to the listener of the podcast and the folks from Gun Owners that'll hear this about the overreaction of Hochul, the governor of New York, and the legislature in New York.
I mean, I talked to Paul Clements, who argued that case.
I was with him at a conference just a couple weeks ago.
I said, they're just keeping you in business.
He said, we're just waiting for it to go through.
He said, because we're going to end up right back at the Supreme Court with the same issue.
Talk to us about that.
Yeah, so New York actually responded by passing a law that was more restrictive than the original one that the Supreme Court struck down.
And in fact, I should mention, Doug, that Gun Owners of America, we have launched a lawsuit against the new law, We're demanding a preliminary injunction.
We filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which will be heard this month.
If everything goes well, that law is going to be set aside and won't go into effect while it gets hashed out in the courts.
They completely ignored the court.
We've imposed all kinds of restrictions on concealed carry holders, like where they can carry, how they can get a permit.
In fact, gun owners who want to carry now have to submit their social media posts to get approval.
They have to give character references so that they can be interviewed by government officials.
Bureaucrats.
It's incredibly, incredibly oppressive.
And that's why I say the new law is even more restrictive.
By the way, I should also point out that they made the entire state, almost, a gun-free zone.
This long list of entertainment places, churches, schools, stores, private homes.
Unless a place says you can carry here, it is now off limits.
Basically responded to what the Supreme Court said about sensitive places, and they said, we're going to make the entire state a sensitive place.
Totally draconian.
We're actually very hopeful that we're going to be successful in...
Getting this set aside because of the tremendous overreach.
And besides the governor's statement that she just didn't like the decision by the Supreme Court and so that, you know, they were going to ignore it.
And so all that works together, I think, just to show that, you know, she's just kind of spitting in their face.
And so we're very hopeful in terms of our success in this.
Well, I think you'll have success now because, I mean, like I said, it's just, you go, as you said, it's an overreach.
I mean, what was there was bad enough.
Now you just made it worse.
I mean, the way that is looking, you know, from somebody who's been in the military for over 20 years, that's a security background check.
That's for a secret clearance, top secret clearance.
I mean, to go into your background, where you live, your social media accounts, all that kind of stuff.
It's just, I mean, it's just so much over.
It told me they wasn't serious, though, when they did the social media part.
That almost to me told me, New York, you're really not serious about this.
Because no court.
I mean, there's nothing else like it, which makes it really amazing to me that they would even go there.
But that was a good stand.
I think the decision was well written, well worded.
Thomas killed it.
I mean, he did it as he always does.
But he's gotten really, really good in the last few years with this stuff.
Let's go to what I call the scary gun ban.
Because that's all this is.
I mean, to watch...
Eric, did you just watch in amazement?
These are my former colleagues.
I know these people in a very personal way.
Many of my friends would disagree with them, especially on the Democrat side.
But it was amazing to me, if you didn't watch the markup, which is taking a bill and getting it ready to go to the floor for the assault weapons ban, the new one, David Cicilline out of Rhode Island Road.
When he was challenged on what they were banning, and they didn't even know the difference between an arm brace and a bump stop.
And they're sitting there.
I mean, there's this great picture.
If you ever go online, they got the picture and they're trying to figure out what it is.
And finally, just to say it was the same thing.
It's bad enough that you want to ban guns that you don't think look right or scary.
It's worse, though, to not even know what they do.
Right.
Talk to me about how you view that markup.
That was, I want to say it was hysterical, but, you know, it's hysterical in a very sad way because they're banning and restricting freedom that we have.
Yeah, in regard to Representative Cicilline, you know, his first clue that he didn't know what he was talking about, because he's describing a stabilizing brace, which helps people who are disabled to hold their firearm to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
And he's describing how a stabilizing brace allows the firearm to bump fire, to move back and forth.
Well, if it's a stabilizing brace, he doesn't know the meaning of words.
Stabilizing means to keep still.
It does the exact opposite of what he's saying.
So you're absolutely right.
They have no idea.
In fact, Republicans like Massey and Jordan just...
As professionally as they could, relentlessly mock them on this point and many others where they just didn't know what they were talking about.
But ultimately, you're right, it's a scary gun ban.
Pelosi and most of the Democrats in Congress want to return us to muskets.
I mean, that's the bottom line.
Yeah, it is.
Well, and one of the things that I thought was really interesting is Cicilline, and I've known David.
We've worked on other things together.
And this one is just, I mean, he's just taking this lead, and there's a whole lot of backstory there.
But this idea, I mean, in one of his arguments, he said, don't give me your constitutional objections here.
It's like, wait, wait, wait.
You're a member of Congress, and you just said don't bring up constitutional objections to what you're doing.
You're supposed to be living by that.
Also one of the funnier times, and Bishop, Dan Bishop's out of North Carolina, did a good job on this, and Massey said, The way he talked about this and then brought it up, the discrepancy in the bill itself, in one part banning a gun and in another part saying specifically it was legal.
I mean, you would at least think they would pay somebody who understood guns.
I mean, even if they disagreed with them, I'll pay you a lot of money to describe these things for me so I don't look like an idiot in the middle of a hearing.
Absolutely.
And, you know, let's face it, the kinds of guns that this bill bans are guns that are commonly owned by millions of gun owners right now.
I mean, obviously the AR-15, which, by the way, was used by one of my co-workers.
To stop a mass shooter in a Texas church almost five years ago.
AR-15s and AK-47s have been used all over the country in self-defense and they're especially effective in riot situations or multiple home invader situations.
That's where it's extremely useful.
We had a gal from GOA Antonia Okafor-Kover, she's a firearms instructor, and she testified that women particularly actually are surprised when she introduces the AR-15 to them.
They're surprised to see how much they even prefer that because of the more minimal recoil over many of the handguns that they're using.
So anyway, that will be banned.
The Glock 19 and the Glock 17, by the way, the latter gun, the Glock 17, was used by that guy in the Indianapolis Mall recently to stop a mass shooting.
And of course, sadly, the historic 1911 pistol.
You know, the very gun that was used by Sergeant Alvin York in World War I? Yeah, that'll be targeted.
It targets the handguns, by the way, because anything that has a fully automatic equivalent is banned in its semi-automatic form.
So that's why you see that that's kind of the back door into getting a lot of these handguns.
Now, I should mention there's a limited grandfather clause in this bill.
But this gets back, Doug, to what we were talking about earlier.
That clause is geared toward ultimately registering every gun, because if you sell or transfer your grandfathered gun, it has to go through a universal background check, and the buyer, or even if it's your son or daughter who's received it as an inheritance, has to fill out that 4473 form.
So again, it's all about gun owner registration, which, first step to gun confiscation, And, you know, you just can't say it enough.
That's what the anti-gun left is truly after.
And let me make a point.
If you're listening to this podcast and maybe you have issues about guns, you've listened to the argument from the left so long, you maybe think this is callous conversation.
What about the dead children?
What about the people who get killed?
Look, I'm very sensitive to that.
I mean, as a chaplain, as someone who's worked with law enforcement, who's been there for years dealing with death and military, I mean...
The tragedies that happened at Uvalde and others on July 4th, just name them.
Number one, they're the minority, although one is too many, they're the minority of these cases.
Long guns are not used in the vast, vast, vast shootings that are coming.
Chicago, for example, a couple weekends ago had, I think it was, 60-something shootings.
I'll almost guarantee you none of those were with long guns.
They were with handguns.
They were different issues.
So, what we're trying to say here is that our firearm right is something we have in our Second Amendment.
It's something that we have.
It does not downplay somebody who does something stupid, just as enough as I'm not going to defend a drunk driver who gets out and kills somebody on their way home.
It's this issue here.
But what we've got to understand is also the only way, and I think the left has finally figured this out, Eric, the only way they can truly, at a certain point, decide what the bill they're passing works is just to get rid of all guns.
And they know that that's almost impossible, but that's why they have to come back.
At least they're being honest with the assault weapon ban.
If you banned all assault weapons and then eventually took them away, You know, you couldn't use that weapon.
So I'll give them that if that's what they want to say.
But we know that that doesn't happen in the way it happens as we go forward.
So with all of that said...
What you would have is a situation like in Mexico, where there will still be people who get them, like the cartels, and people live in fear.
I've gone on mission work in Mexico, and it is tragic to hear how young teenagers get whisked away to work for the cartels, because they have no choice.
Their family will be murdered if they don't.
These cartels are heavily armed, and yet the guns they have are illegal.
There is, as I understand it, one legal gun store in the entire country.
And so most people are unarmed, and yet the gangs and the cartels and sometimes even the police are terrorizing the people.
So, you know, the technology is out there.
You can't ban away the technology.
The technology is there, and plus there's millions and millions and millions of these guns already made and out there legally.
So they are out there.
To even say, you know, we're going to pass a ban from here on in, That's not going to do anything.
If anything, it's just going to keep good people like you and me, or especially good people who are late to the game and didn't have the chance to get them in order to protect themselves.
They're the ones who are especially going to be in danger.
Exactly.
I was at an outdoor show this past weekend.
I went and, of course, hunting season is getting ready closer, so I went.
And I saw a t-shirt, Eric, I think you'd appreciate it.
I almost bought it.
And it said something that said with over like three million guns and multiple billions of rounds of ammunition, if gun owners were the problem, you would know it.
And I think that's just a true statement.
If gun owners were the problem, you would know it.
And again, it's the ones, it's on the edge that we have to look at.
The reason I wanted, and I'm glad we're here today talking about this, and we're going to get this out as much as we can because I want people to understand the breakdown, not just these top lines that the left will tell you about what these guns do.
These are a real threat to our Second Amendment.
And these are bills that You know, again, unfortunately, even under the construct of some of the Supreme Court decisions are very concerning that they might be upheld.
And I think this is a concern that we have to look at.
It's why elections matter.
It's why real information matters.
Last thing before we go, though, and I do want to talk about this because I hear it so much.
A semi-automatic weapon is a one-pull, one-shot weapon.
Plain and simple.
You cannot invent a semi-automatic weapon that you pull it once and it sprays.
You can't pull the trigger one time and it shoots 100 rounds.
This idea that we're going to ban magazines that have high-capacity magazines, all this other...
You and I both know if someone is good with their firearm, Go back to the old West days.
A six-shot revolver can do more damage with those six shots than somebody who has no idea what they're doing and just hitting it away.
That's the part, though, Eric, that concerns me is the ignorance of...
Those in dealing with firearms and perpetrating that ignorance out there that makes these guns seem like something that they're not.
And I think that's why I call it the scary gun ban.
Some of you may get mad at me and I call it a scary gun ban.
Because that's all it is.
Honestly, when you can take a rifle that would be legal under this bill and add some accessories to it and it become illegal...
Then you have absolutely no understanding of what a firearm does.
And that's just the problem.
Eric, give you the sort of last word here.
Where do you see these heading?
I think the Democrats are going to have a hard time passing that out of the House.
Pelosi may do a last minute, you know, tug to get it and all.
But I think they're going to have trouble.
They only got like one Republican, maybe two, that will be willing to go along with them.
Where do you think we're seeing this?
Yeah, so the legislation we're talking about, H.R. 1808, dealing with the scary guns and magazines, they changed the rules to get it passed real quick, and it did pass narrowly in the House, 217 to 213. It's now on its way to the Senate, and I agree with you.
I do think they're going to have trouble getting it passed, because they'd have to get...
10 Republicans.
And I don't discount that there's rhino Republicans that might go along with this.
But to get 10, that's a tall order.
I don't think, if I were a betting man, I don't think that's going to happen with one caveat.
And the caveat is that people keep the heat on their legislators.
I mean, you know what that's like, Doug.
And quite frankly, I got told from Senate offices on the First bill that we were talking about, that their Republican senator, who has supported gun control in the past, didn't support it this time around because of the outpouring of opposition to it.
So that's what we need to do.
We need to keep it up on this legislation.
The scariness is in the eye of the beholder.
I actually think these guns are very beautiful.
It's the kind that I like to own.
But I realize some people like, you know, guns that have the wooden stock.
But, you know, you hit on it.
A gun with the wooden stock, a semi-automatic with the wooden stock, more than likely is legal under this bill.
But then you put black plastic on it and a few accessories, and then bam, it's now illegal.
And yet it's the same internal mechanism.
There's nothing different about the firing.
So it's really important.
We've got a lot of alerts up on our website at gunowners.org.
If people go there, they can take action very easily, just a click of the mouse.
And I'd encourage people to sign up for our free email alerts so we can keep you updated with the fight that's happening.
Well, that is good.
And I'm glad we clarified that.
Yeah, the House, I mean, my bigger picture talking about getting it passed was the Senate because the House, you know, they can twist the arms and that's what they did.
They get it out of the House and they get it.
And Pelosi can go begging the Senate all they want.
But I think Republicans have heard, especially the ones who sided on this bipartisan bill, have heard from a lot of people saying, whoa, whoa, why did you do this?
They don't want to pick up that hot iron again.
But if we let down and we don't keep that up, then they may be willing to go touch that iron again and we don't We don't need them to do that.
That's why with this podcast, while we want it out as many places we can get it, we're going to work together to get this out so that people understand the inner workings of these bills, not just the top line stuff that the media wants to hear.
Eric Pratt, Gun Owners of America, thanks for being with me today.
You're very welcome, Doug.
Thanks so much for having me again.
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 bedsheet 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.
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