The David Knight Show - Fri Episode #2191: The Right Is Abandoning the Second Amendment

Jan. 30, 2026 - The David Knight Show

01:54:10

Fri Episode #2191: The Right Is Abandoning the Second Amendment

00:01:22:16 — Minnesota Raids and the Return of Ruby Ridge–Style Federal Abuse Knight opens by warning that federal law enforcement actions in Minnesota mirror Ruby Ridge–era abuses, revealing an escalation in federal violence. 00:02:38:03 — RICO Lawsuit Targets Pediatricians and the CDC Knight introduces a sweeping RICO case alleging coordinated fraud surrounding the childhood vaccine schedule involving the CDC, AAP, and pharmaceutical interests. 00:03:44:19 — RICO Statutes: From Organized Crime to Government Abuse Knight explains how anti-mafia laws evolved into tools for civil asset forfeiture and pre-punishment now used against the public. 00:06:36:00 — Forty Years of Missing Vaccine Safety Data Knight highlights allegations that legally required safety studies tied to the 1986 vaccine liability shield were never produced. 00:08:58:19 — Autoimmune Epidemics Linked to Immune System Disruption Knight connects rising asthma, diabetes, and autoimmune disease rates to chronic immune dysregulation rather than natural causes. 00:10:54:05 — Trump Revives mRNA and AI Genetic Programs Knight warns that renewed efforts to merge AI with mRNA technology represent an expansion of transhumanist experimentation. 00:12:14:17 — Self-Amplifying mRNA and Military Funding Knight argues Pentagon-funded research into replicating genetic injections signals coercive deployment beyond informed consent. 00:16:56:20 — Republicans Treat Gun Ownership as Inherent Suspicion Knight criticizes GOP figures who frame lawful firearm possession as automatic danger, undermining the Second Amendment. 00:21:12:00 — Vehicle Kill Switches and the End of Freedom of Movement Knight and Kubiniec warn that mandated remote car shutoff technology threatens the practical right to travel. 01:02:30:19 — James Bovard Joins to Compare Minnesota Killing to Ruby Ridge Knight brings on James Bovard to analyze why the Minnesota killing echoes Ruby Ridge and Waco–era federal abuses. 01:08:19:09 — Pattern of Federal Cover-Ups: Lie, Exaggerate, Justify Bovard outlines a recurring federal pattern of suppressed evidence, exaggerated threats, and post-hoc rationalizations. 01:37:30:16 — Trump’s Vision of Power Without Constitutional Limits Knight closes by arguing Trump defines “greatness” as unchecked executive power rather than constitutional restraint. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.com Cash App at: $davidknightshow BTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Vaccines and Immune Dysregulation 00:11:05
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 30th of January, Year of Our Lord 2026.
	Well, let's hope that this weekend we don't have an Iranian war started because as Gerald Slinty pointed out, Trump loves to kick these things off on the weekend, and things are stacking up that way.
	There's a lot of things that he doesn't want us to see.
	One of the things he doesn't want us to see is what is going on in Minnesota.
	There was a tremendous pushback against Jim Bovard for a tweet that he put out comparing what happened in Minnesota to Ruby Ridge.
	And if you don't remember that history, I think you'll find this very interesting.
	Whether you remember it or not, there's a lot of details that many people have forgotten and a lot of parallels to what is happening in terms of abuse of federal law enforcement.
	We're also going to have the CEO of a company called Secure It is going to join us.
	They have a different approach to gun safety and to gun personal security.
	And so we're going to talk about that.
	I think you'll find that very informative.
	A tactical approach to storing and using your guns.
	So we're going to have both of them.
	And we're going to begin with something I didn't get a chance to talk about yesterday, which is the new RICO lawsuit that has been filed against the American Academy of Pediatricians and the CDC.
	I'll be right back.
	Well, a couple of lawsuits have been filed by the Children's Health Defense and by another organization accusing the American Academy of Pediatricians, as well as the CDC, of conspiring on the vaccine schedule to the harm of children.
	Now, anybody who's been following this knows that that's the case, but it's a RICO lawsuit because it is a vast fraudulent conspiracy.
	We've all heard the phrase that if you're in academia, you publish or you perish.
	Except that the problem here is that if you do research and you publish that, you get punished by the CDC and by the AAP.
	In January 21st, the Children's Health Defense filed a sweeping racketeering influence and corrupt organization lawsuit against AAP.
	Now, these are the RICO statutes that are out there and the RICO lawsuits are there.
	And I have spoken out against them in terms of tactics used by the government to basically punish people before they're found guilty.
	It's an issue.
	But in this particular case, this is a civil lawsuit.
	It's a different type of thing.
	And I think this will be a very good case for the public because it's going to air a lot of this dirty criminal laundry from the pediatricians as well as the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies who are all a part of this.
	It's a vast criminal conspiracy.
	RICO statutes in general, they were there because they wanted to come after organized crime.
	They found that organized crime had tremendous financial resources and they could hire the best lawyers who could.
	get them out of these types of situations.
	So their response was to say, well, we are going to take their money first and then we'll have the trial.
	And so you would make an indictment against them, but before they were found guilty, you basically punish them by taking away their money.
	That evolved into civil asset forfeiture, which is basically not even coming up with an indictment or charge against people, but taking their property anyway, charging the property with a crime.
	And so we've seen the abuse of RICO statute in many different areas.
	But again, I think that in this civil lawsuit like this, it does get to the heart of a racketeering and corrupt organization conspiracy that is there.
	So what they're talking about here is the fact that you've had some of the people who are involved in this on not on the CDC side, but on the other side.
	These are people who have had their medical licenses revoked because of research that they published.
	This is how you understand that it's a criminal organization when they start trying to cover up the information.
	They hide and conceal information, whether it's about climate science or whether it's about the actions of the Department of Justice or whatever.
	The criminals are always going to lie and to cover up the data.
	That is a hallmark of all this stuff.
	One of the key things I think we want to focus on, though, is the way that this actually works.
	We have seen many people who have been punished when they speak out against the vaccine schedule.
	We have seen the difference, the harm that is done in America versus other countries that don't have that, especially versus, let's say, the Amish who don't follow this vaccine schedule.
	But we understand that it's about profit.
	We understand it's a collusion between the pharmaceutical industries and the CDC, one of the biggest sellers of vaccines and that type of thing.
	But even going back to the 1986 act that Fauci shepherded through with Ronald Reagan, where they took away liability for vaccines, for childhood vaccines, they were supposed to, every two years, produce safety results that came out of the VARERS database.
	They've not published a single one for nearly 40 years now.
	And so that is a part of the allegations.
	But in terms of how this actually operates, it's interesting to go back and look at what the immune system, what actually happens to the immune system with so many of these vaccines given collectively in clusters.
	As they say on Malone.news, immune dysregulation is a mechanism of how it harms children.
	Vaccines are intended to train the immune system, they say.
	Except when they've got a different agenda.
	It doesn't make any sense to say that the vaccines are going to train the immune system and then say that a disease is not going to train the immune system.
	This is the problem with virology.
	And as the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies are freaking out about people pushing back against the vaccine schedule, they blame it all on RFK Jr.
	Except he's been saying this for a very long time.
	The reality is that people have seen the lies and the fraud associated with the COVID so-called pandemic.
	And that is really the heart of this.
	And one of the things that we saw were pronouncements by Fauci saying you can't get immunity from having the disease.
	You have to get it from the vaccine or it doesn't work.
	Well, that doesn't make any sense.
	If the purpose of the vaccine is to train your immune system to handle the real disease, well, if you have survived the real disease, then you don't need to have the vaccine.
	And so this is the argument that Rand Paul had with Fauci.
	But again, as I started looking at these inconsistencies, it's one of the reasons why I've arrived at the point where I'm no longer anti-vaccine.
	I'm anti-virology.
	It's not a science.
	It's a tool of control and manipulation and propaganda because it doesn't hold together at all.
	However, if you look at the analogy of how this damages people in immune dysregulation, the example that Malone.news gives says, imagine the immune system is a well-organized beehive where each bee knows its role.
	It can recognize, response, respond, and do various things, but vaccination would be essentially like kicking the beehive repeatedly while wearing a disguise.
	The hive doesn't get smarter.
	It gets chaotic.
	It gets aggressive.
	It gets confused.
	Soon the bees start stinging anything that moves, including the queen, the worker bees, even the hive itself.
	And there's no assurance of targeted recognition, only widespread inflammation, panic, and self-harm.
	And that's basically what happens with today's autoimmune epidemics that we see happening.
	Asthma, eczema, food allergies, type 1 diabetes, things like rheumatoid arthritis.
	This is the mechanism that is happening.
	This shock to the immune system, confusing it, causing it to attack everything, even parts of your body.
	So the immune system is being artificially shaped in a way that many predispose entire generations to chronic disease.
	Instead of immune education, we may be witnessing immune miseducation with devastating lifelong consequences.
	And so it is the things that we see in terms of these adjuvants, these neurotoxins like aluminum and mercury, also known as thimerosol, which is still being put into the vaccines.
	I remember a decade ago when we were talking about thimerosol, oh, we don't put that in vaccines anymore.
	Well, yes, they do.
	They still put it in a lot of the flu vaccines, the ones that are put together as a collective group instead of a single dose.
	They have multiple doses.
	Those have thimerosol in them as a preservative, a known neurotoxin.
	Same thing with aluminum.
	And so if you remember, we were told by Alex Jones, the vaccine that Trump is doing is not like Bill Gates' vaccine.
	It's just sugar water.
	And come on, you can take a little bit of mercury and aluminum injected directly into your veins.
	That's not a problem.
	You can do that for Trump.
	Just inject the sugar water Kool-Aid.
	Well, that's not the way it works.
	Meanwhile, when we look at where they want to go with the mRNA vaccines, we have seen Donald Trump on his very first day.
	What did he do?
	He returned to the mRNA vaccines.
	And he tried to combine, wants to combine that as part of this Stargate operation that he had Larry Ellison give a presentation for.
	What they want to do is combine AI with mRNA vaccines to create a new level of genetic code injections.
	And it's not just Donald Trump.
	It's also people like JD Vance and Vivake the Snake Rama Slimy.
	They are also investing in companies that do self-amplifying mRNA.
	They are giving doses, lethal doses, of synthetic viral material containing artificial DNA sequences forced into animals using lipid nanoparticles, all the same things that we saw with the Trump shot that he is so proud of being the father of.
	But they also include with this now electrical pulses.
	The aim of the research is to develop replicon mRNA vaccines and treatment strategies.
Why Guns Matter 00:15:14
	But alarmingly, the work is being partially funded by the U.S. Defense Establishment, the usual suspects.
	And the purpose, why would they want to self-amplify these genetic code injections?
	Well, for the purpose of getting this into people who are not taking the vaccine.
	They want to get it larger and have it spread without being able to, without having to wait for people to take the vaccine voluntarily.
	That is what is so subversive about all this.
	And of course, again, the connection to the U.S. military-industrial complex, which Trump at Davos just proudly admitted that Operation Warp Speed was a military operation, in case you hadn't noticed by now.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break.
	And when we come back, we're going to talk to the CEO of a company called SecureIt.
	And they have a different approach to securing your guns as well as making them actually more readily available to you in various places.
	And so it's a tactical approach.
	And I think you'll find it interesting.
	There's, I think, things that anybody who has a gun should think about, as well as, you know, what do you train?
	How do you train with it?
	And where do you store it?
	These are all important issues for anybody who wants to try to defend themselves and their family.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	You're listening to the David Knight Show.
	Joining us now is Tom Kubenek, and he is a CEO of a company called Secure It.
	They have been a military contractor in the past, but now it's about 87%, he said, is a consumer market.
	It's a product that you might be interested in if you've got a firearm.
	You want to be able to secure it, have a rapid access gun safe type of thing.
	But we want to talk about Second Amendment issues.
	It's very timely, I think, with what is happening right now.
	And so we're going to talk about the gun culture, Second Amendment in general.
	And so joining us now is Tom Kubenek.
	Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
	Well, thank you very much for the opportunity.
	I'm looking forward to the conversation.
	Well, it really has been over this last weekend.
	People have been talking about Second Amendment rights and the gun culture from a variety of different angles has really put it front and center with this shooting in Minnesota.
	And so we've seen some surprising statements from people that are Republicans, people that are supposed to be allies to the gun issue.
	And it's like, you know, you shouldn't be carrying a gun, things that look like their perspective is that makes you instantly dangerous and a suspect.
	What do you think is really the threat?
	And what direction is it coming to us in terms of the individual liberty and the God-given right of self-defense?
	What's your perspective on that?
	It's really, there's always the forces.
	There are always the forces working to eliminate this right.
	And they will seize on every opportunity to steer and manipulate and do whatever they can.
	But as you said, there's a lot of very much pro-2A people who are now making statements that would call into question, like, wait a minute, what is your position?
	And I think a lot of that is driven, I mean, A, if they're politically connected, they want to be within a narrow realm of acceptable talking points without alienating their base.
	But it's the Second Amendment sits as an icon, as one of our, it's a fundamental right of this country, of our, of citizens.
	And that means it doesn't matter, you know, how bad a situation is.
	It doesn't matter politically correct in the, you know, the horrible nature of what unfolded is, I mean, it's a travesty what happened.
	And I don't want, I can't get too detailed into the hows and whys because we don't know yet.
	They're going to dig into this thing and pull it apart.
	But regardless of what happened, the Second Amendment still stands for what it is.
	And we have the right to carry.
	We have a right to own and have firearms.
	And that right should have no bearing, no impact on the events that unfolded, other than there was a gentleman who was exercising a right.
	Yeah, and we see this.
	A lot of people talk about the fact that in order for the general public at large to understand what is involved here, they need to have some contact with guns.
	I don't know your background in terms of your contact with guns and how long that's been around, assuming that it's been a very long time.
	But a lot of people have hardened positions because they're not really a part of that culture.
	They don't know anything about guns.
	They haven't used them.
	But we're living in a time where individual liberty is pretty much despised in all different areas.
	I mean, almost everybody has driven a car in this society, and yet we see a lot of contempt for the right to be able to travel freely.
	We just had a lot of Republicans voted against the idea that we're going to stop this kill switch that's been mandated.
	So they want to got a lot of Republicans who, and pretty much nearly all the Democrats who said that the government should be able to shut down your car independent of you.
	We should have some device somehow that's going to be on the car that's going to decide whether or not you should be allowed to drive and then shut it down.
	We've seen different things like that proposed for safety in terms of smart guns and stuff like that.
	Well, we're going to have a smart car that's going to decide whether or not you're allowed to use it.
	And so even though people have had a lot of experience driving cars, being passengers in cars and know the car culture here in America, there's still a real uneasiness about car ownership and operation.
	So, of course, we're going to see that with the gun culture, aren't we?
	Absolutely.
	It's, you know, the car thing is really strange that people are supporting this.
	And I'm surprised there's not a bigger outrage because there is no right to own or drive a car in our Constitution.
	However, the concept of a car didn't exist when everything was drafted.
	And we do have a right to move about in our country.
	We do have a right to, you know, we're self-directed.
	We have the freedom to do what we want to do as long as we're not violating someone else's constitutional rights.
	So you could simply very easily draw a conclusion that, you know, these rights we have, the car is simply a vehicle to exercise our rights.
	It's a very accepted, it's the standard way in which we Americans move around.
	The government's going to come in and say, oh, wait, we're going to be able to shut off a right.
	Because you're not, yes, you're stopping a car, but you're shutting down someone's ability to move about freely.
	And you can't argue that, well, you still have that right.
	You don't need a car.
	Well, in our world, I mean, anybody knows if all of a sudden, unless you live in a handful of big cities with public transportation that you feel safe riding, the cost of the story.
	It's a small case.
	Well, it is, but it's, again, I had a son who lived in New York, went to school there, and he was never going to own a car in New York.
	It makes no sense.
	But I live in a small town.
	And if you don't have a car, that is a punishment.
	That's a sentence.
	You are now confined.
	You're not moving around.
	That's right.
	It's just, it's that critical to our ability to move about freely in our country.
	That's right.
	And of course, the drafters of the Constitution understood that the Bill of Rights is not giving us rights, that our rights come from God.
	What they were doing was enumerating certain ones that they knew that we'd be attacked at first.
	But they made it clear that if we didn't mention it, it doesn't mean that we don't have that right.
	We haven't surrendered anything to you.
	And that really is the case.
	When we look at their intrusion into our personal papers, they don't have to send an officer around to rummage through our desks anymore.
	They can do it remotely through our devices, and they can get into our personal papers and all these other things like that.
	So it really is, we're at the point where people don't understand why we have these prohibitions against actions by government infringing on our individual liberty.
	And they don't value these things because they've always had them and they take them for granted.
	And we're on the cusp of losing so many of our liberties, I think.
	And so the Second Amendment is just one of those.
	And it's the one that they've been coming after for the longest time, I think.
	I think you're, I mean, it is, but the fact that it is, I don't know if the word is brilliantly worded, but it's so well worded in our Constitution.
	Again, you said, this is not a right that is given.
	The right is, it's implied.
	The right is at birth.
	It simply says the government is not going to infringe on this right.
	So that is very carefully worded in our favor.
	And as you just mentioned, though, what we're seeing happening, and a lot of people are unaware of it, it's everything else.
	It's this chipping away of our individuality and working us towards what was a, what did the new head of New York City about collectivism, this idea that we're not individuals, it's a collective and the collective whole will benefit if we have, if the government has these powers.
	Well, that's, there's no world where I could ever imagine that somehow we benefit because the government has a massive power to limit our capabilities.
	I don't care what that capability is.
	It's just, that's not who we are.
	Again, they're not our leaders.
	They are simply our representatives.
	And when they start acting like leaders and thinking they're in charge, that should be red flags going up all over the place.
	And of course, history shows just the opposite happens when you turn over all powers to the government.
	So what do we do?
	What is real security?
	And how, from your perspective in terms of what you make available to people in terms of the organizations, tell us a little bit about your corporation, how you got involved in it.
	Well, Securet, we are the global leader in military weapon storage.
	We build armories all over the world.
	And now we are in consumer products with fast access gun safes.
	Our methodology is a little different than in the consumer retail space.
	We're the only company that, you know, we come from a military background.
	We look at firearms and firearm security and safes and things like that from the perspective of why does someone own a firearm.
	And that storage has to be conducive with why you own the gun.
	To that end, you know, everything we produce is smaller, modular, lightweight, affordable, and easy to live with.
	The idea of a great big, heavy, you know, metal box full of drywall in your basement is just, it's, it's, there's a reason so many guns in America are unsecured.
	Yeah.
	And I talk to a lot of people and they all have the same statements.
	Oh, yeah, I've got a gun safe in my basement, but for personal protection, I keep one next to my bed.
	I keep one here.
	I keep one there.
	And yes, you have that right.
	But when you look at the data of the number of tragedies, accidental, the things that happen annually in this country that could be prevented very simply by simply providing a simple barrier between kids, between unwanted people and your firearms, it seems like a no-brainer to us.
	And now, you know, we're at a point with fast access gun safes.
	We can easily demonstrate that it's faster to have your gun locked in a fast access safe than to have it in a closet leaning in a corner of a room.
	I can demonstrate that my access in my home, you come into my home, you would never know I own firearms.
	Yeah, I'm never more than two and a half seconds away from being armed.
	If I'm at my closet or at one of my locations, I can be less than a second.
	I also, you know, as the owner of the company, I'm trying to prove a point.
	I practice access.
	I make sure that I'm on top of what I'm doing.
	But, you know, one of our missions is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured.
	And proper is defined by out of sight.
Proper Gun Security 00:09:37
	And, you know, if you've got little kids in your home, they don't need to know.
	And once they're old enough to understand, well, then they should go to, you should teach them, train them, and have them be very proficient with firearms.
	The more proficient people are with firearms, the safer we all are.
	So it's I agree with that.
	Yeah.
	And we're at the point where one of the reasons I want to talk to you is because we're at the point right now in our family.
	We have my son has got a young toddler who's just starting to walk.
	And so we've got to make sure that we got everything secure for him.
	Absolutely.
	And, you know, he's at a very vulnerable age right now, of course.
	You know, you never know what he's going to do with anything.
	He doesn't have the strength to pull the trigger, but who knows what he would do.
	So we've got to have this stuff secured.
	And that's a key thing.
	That's absolutely a key thing.
	It is.
	And I read and people send to me data all the time and infrastructure stories about accidental access to firearms.
	And, you know, with young boys, it's a it, I don't want to sound, I mean, it's more of a boy thing than a girl thing.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	Young boys, train sets and guns.
	That's right.
	We had a friend.
	We give a kid a stick and he immediately points a stick and shoots it.
	That was right.
	We had a friend who she was very much did not like the gun culture and everything.
	And she had a young son and she said, I finally realized that it's just innate.
	She said, I kept guns away from him, didn't give him any toy guns.
	I look out and he's got a stick and he's going pew-pew out in the backyard with a stick.
	So, you know, they know and they're going to, they're just wired for that.
	And so, yeah, we have to make sure we take the proper precautions with all that.
	That's a key part of it, isn't it?
	It is.
	And I get the argument not to have a gun unsecured.
	And it's an old argument, but it's based on old thinking.
	And when you look at what's available now, there's no reason not to, there's no reason not to have every single firearm properly secured.
	We've developed what we call the principles of decentralized storage.
	And that's really looking at your home the way I would look at a reactionary force in the Marine Corps.
	You're trying to defend a base or an embassy security force.
	How are we going to locate and deploy fire weapons to make this place secure?
	Well, look at your home the same way.
	We publish a lot of information on this because the safest, most secure locations in your home to store and secure firearms are also the best locations to give you a tactical advantage in the event of a break-in, a home invasion, or in some way that you're being threatened in your home or in your car.
	That's very, very important.
	Yeah, so you know, what do we do to get people to understand the gun culture?
	And what kind of messaging do we have to worry about inside of the people who understand the importance of guns, but in terms of the way that we talk about it?
	You know, I think intelligent conversation is better than rhetoric.
	And there's a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this conversation.
	And it's my hope that on the firearm side, on the side of 2A, that people think a little bit and then speak and speak intelligently.
	You know, the Constitution is on our side.
	We don't need to have a loud, difficult, yelling conversation about firearms.
	We simply need to express what the Constitution gives us and what we have and what it protects.
	And then just talk about the advantages of firearms ownership.
	And I think a big part of that advantage is training, is understanding simply buying a firearm does not make you more secure.
	Taking the time to get training, taking the time to practice, that does.
	And I got a real, I mean, real quick story.
	I thought it was such a huge win for the Second Amendment.
	We worked with a software developer several years ago.
	He was out of California, very liberal.
	In fact, he questioned working with us because we were in the firearms industry.
	And he was very upfront about it.
	He just said, guys, look, I'm a little uncomfortable.
	I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not a supporter of the Second Amendment.
	I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of working for you guys.
	I simply said, look, I understand.
	Our mission is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured.
	If I achieve my mission, do you feel safer?
	And he agreed with me.
	So we started working together.
	And this was right when the defund police all started happening.
	And he was fairly close to some pretty bad events.
	And he was nervous about it.
	And he went out and he bought a handgun.
	And he talked to me about it.
	I said, look, getting the handgun is not going to help you.
	You need to take good training, find a good instructor, find one you're comfortable with, work with them on a fairly regular basis for the first couple of months.
	You need to make sure if you're going to own a firearm, you get to the range at least once a month.
	And he said, it's a commitment.
	And he said, okay.
	And what was fascinating, months later, he called me, said, Tom, I got to tell you something.
	I love this.
	I'm now shooting.
	He's now shooting.
	He was getting into a class.
	Then he was joining a club where they were doing competition, handgun competitions.
	About four months into this, he called me, said, Tom, I'm going to buy an AR-15.
	And I said, Really?
	He goes, I just, I'm watching what these guys can do with the rifle.
	It's A, it's the safest gun that I can own in my home, which I agree with, a properly owned, properly trained person with an AR-15.
	There's no safer rifle in America.
	And he is an ultra-liberal computer programmer guy who now is a Second Amendment supporter.
	And I just watched it unfold.
	He felt threatened.
	He felt alone.
	His vision that law enforcement is there to protect me fell apart in the defund, you know, defund police mode.
	And all of a sudden, he realized the only thing keeping me safe is luck, that they don't happen to come.
	The mob in the street doesn't happen to come into my home.
	And he viewed it.
	It was kind of a wake-up call for him.
	And all of a sudden, he did the proper steps, and I commend him for doing it properly.
	He now owns firearms.
	He's in a very good position to defend himself and his neighbors.
	I'm sure his friends and his groups have no idea that he owns firearms, but it's people have to think about that.
	I've interviewed a guy a couple of times from South Africa, and he was a missionary.
	And he had concerns.
	He said, I don't think I should own a firearm.
	And, you know, I don't have any interest.
	I don't think I could shoot somebody or shoot at somebody.
	And yet there was a lot of violence in South Africa at the time.
	And so he said he saw people that were innocent being shot.
	And he said, I realized then that I have an obligation to protect innocent life, including my own.
	And so he got a gun and he trained on it.
	He only had a five-shot revolver.
	And he was attending a very large church, over a thousand people.
	And he was just visiting it.
	But they said later on during Truth and Reconciliation that they had picked that church because they didn't figure anybody would be armed.
	They came in the side door throwing grenades and shooting the place up with fully automatic weapons.
	He's way in the back with just the revolver.
	But he's like, well, I'm going to try.
	So he takes a shot and he thinks, I'm not going to hit anything with that.
	So he ran out the side and took some shots from there and they ran off.
	And they said later on they thought they were being attacked from multiple angles.
	He didn't realize it, but his first shot actually hit one of these guys.
	And so you never know in a situation like that.
	Here's one guy with a revolver, five-shot revolver, and he was able to defend these people.
	Now, when they came in throwing grenades and firing automatic weapons, they immediately killed about 50 people.
	But it could have been everybody.
	They were going to kill everyone in that church.
	And he was able to fend that off.
	So people have to go through these decisions.
	Again, he had to think about this.
	It's like, would I be morally justified to do this in defense of innocent life?
	And he got the right decision and he learned how to use it as well.
	Yeah, and he had a result.
	I always tell people, and I talk to a lot of people on firearms ownership, and I say the decision to buy your first firearm should be a life-altering decision.
	If you're going to own a firearm, which you're going to use, actively use or use for home defense, for personal defense, you're going to change your lifestyle going forward.
	If you're going to carry, if your decision is to conceal, carry a firearm, you will be shooting on a regular basis for the rest of your life.
	And I'm a very busy executive.
	I travel a lot and I have concealed carry permit.
	I have all the proper everything you need.
	But there's many times in my life I do not carry a firearm because if I'm not actively training, for me, it's about decision making.
	And if I've got a long stint where I have not been training, not been shooting, I'll have it in a backpack, but I will not carry on body because I'm not in a position to execute that responsibility at that time.
	That's a decision I make.
	And some people say I'm nuts, but that's just the way I do it.
	And it also encourages me to make sure I block out time to work with instructors, to get the reps in, to just do everything required.
	My background was a musician, and we practice and rehearse, practice, and rehearse.
	So when it's showtime, it doesn't matter if you're nervous.
	It's showtime that you execute.
Background Checks and 3D Printing 00:07:02
	It's the same thing against the same challenges.
	It's just you've got deadly force.
	You've got to have it right.
	That's a great way to look at it.
	Yeah, my son says after the guy gets one, he uses it on the range for a while.
	Realizes it isn't the scary, uncontrollable monster that he thought it was.
	So you start to get to realize what it really is.
	It's a tool.
	As you point out, you need to be experienced in the use of that tool.
	It needs to be kind of second nature.
	You know, there's a lot of different attacks that are coming at us in a lot of different ways.
	And of course, I don't know if you saw this or not, but the whole 3D gun printer thing, which they really are upset about, there's a new law that's being pushed out in Washington.
	And what they're trying to do is, even though this has been upheld as a kind of a combination of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the code for printing gun parts was held to be protected by the First Amendment by courts.
	It was challenged by Cody Wilson, and they won that fight.
	So now the idea of the state government in Washington state is to, we're going to intimidate this, and we're going to do it as a partnership with the printer manufacturers.
	So in order for them to be able to sell the printer manufacturer, they're going to have to set up a mechanism whereby we can prohibit the printing of anything.
	And when the guy started talking about this, this guy is a 3D printer guy, and he's not really focused necessarily on just printing guns.
	But when he talked about it, everybody thought, oh, you're just talking about printing guns and we should shut that down.
	He says, no, this is about everything.
	He says, if you're a farmer and you want to print a 3D part for your tractor, and John Deere says, no, that belongs to us, they can prohibit that as well.
	And so when we look at this, there's this massive interconnection of freedoms.
	And once we start to pick and choose and micromanage which freedoms are going to be exercised and how they're going to be exercised, we all wind up losing everything in the end, don't we?
	I think so.
	I find the 3D printing, I actually follow quite a bit of that.
	I'm fascinated by the technology.
	I restore old cars as one of my, that's my therapy.
	And I've always talked to people about there's going to come a time where you don't buy parts, you buy the drawing and you simply print the parts.
	And that's a long ways down, but printers are getting so inexpensive and the technology is getting so cheap.
	But it is new.
	And there's so many people, such a high percentage of our population that is afraid of change.
	And it doesn't matter what the change is.
	You see resistance to change.
	Yet every morning it's a new day.
	Every day, the second hand is moving.
	And every second goes by, things are changing and advancing.
	We should embrace this technology.
	There's so much good.
	Yeah, you're talking about car parts.
	Jay Lino has been doing that for a while because he's got these very old cars that he's got and nobody's making any parts for them.
	We're going to see that as well for much newer parts because it'll either be the situation where there's not enough of them out there, or maybe the government might even prohibit it because they don't want you driving the old cars that aren't completely connected to their control.
	So that is also another aspect for people to think about.
	It all comes down to the point where they always want to know everything that we're doing, micromanage everything that we're doing and centralized control of everything.
	And that seems to be the current thread of where everything seems to go.
	And that's where the stuff has been coming from for the longest time for firearms.
	Centralize the control of firearms from Washington and then start shutting them down one by one.
	Yeah, I'm surprised some of the things that have happened recently.
	I live in New York State.
	We have the SAFE Act where now I have to do a background check, a state background check to buy ammunition.
	I don't see how this has not been thrown out yet.
	I'm not sure it's been adjudicated.
	It's a crazy rule.
	I'm limited in terms of magazine size.
	I've got my limits.
	There's a list of guns that I simply cannot own in the state.
	And It's an annoyance.
	I mean, for me, when I look at home defense, the actual firearm that I would use to defend myself, I can legally own.
	Can I own a 30-round magazine?
	I cannot.
	It's a 10-round magazine.
	So that changes a little bit of the aspect of how you use it.
	But is there a limit on how many magazines you can have?
	For example, right now.
	They just want you to have to change out to another one.
	But it's, again, it doesn't matter what the rule is.
	It's that there's a lot of people within our government that just are going to chip away at anything they can do.
	And it's just a big pile of dirt of freedom in the middle of this room.
	And any bit they can pull into their little bucket and eliminate, they're going to do it.
	And sometimes I've seen people like, Tom, why are you taking on this fight?
	This is really stupid.
	I said, you know, I hate to use the term slippery slope that's overused, but it applies.
	Yes, sometimes you fight.
	You fight so hard for grains of sand because you're stopping something that's going to be, that could become a tidal wave.
	That's right.
	And a lot of people, I mean, you see it just across the world.
	A lot of people don't react until it hits them personally.
	And at that point, they've missed their window.
	That's right.
	Well, it's like Kimming Way said, you know, the guy who went bankrupt that's very rich that said, how that happened.
	He said, gradually, then suddenly, that's why we have that analogy of a slippery slope.
	That's what happens.
	At first, it's just a short little thing, but then it really picks up speed and it accelerates if you don't stop the trend, if you don't see the trend that's coming.
	No, you can stop a car rolling downhill.
	If the brakes don't work and the car's just starting to move, you can stand behind it and stop it.
	Once it's going five miles an hour, you better get out of the way.
	And that's, you know, we've done a good job of stopping these freight trains.
	I really, I mean, we've, I believe society's done a good job.
	And I think the defund police was a huge, as much as it just shocked me what was happening.
	There were more two-way supporters created when those, when those laws, those, I mean, laws, it's those, those sentiments, those things are being pushed forward in cities like Minneapolis, which I used to do a lot of business.
	It was a beautiful city, beautiful downtown.
	It's never going to recover.
	And there's a lot of people that live there that for the first time in their lives woke up saying, there's nothing preventing chaos from walking into my apartment or my condo or my home, except luck.
	And I hate to see things like that happen to drive support for what I believe in is just the simplest way and the best way to live.
	But we're at another point now where, you know, Trump is a lightning rod.
Firearm Storage Solutions 00:15:40
	Like him or he is a lightning rod personality.
	And there are people that will go against the Second Amendment just to smoke, just because he's on that side.
	I think it's very short, a very narrow focus.
	And he's not very comfortable himself with it either because he's never had any experience.
	I saw the interview with Scott Besson, and that really got my attention over the weekend where he said to Jonathan Carl, his soundbite that he came prepared to talk about was, do you go to a protest with a gun?
	Do you go to a protest?
	I kept asking that question over and over.
	And he kind of got Jonathan Carl to back down.
	Well, I haven't really covered protest as a reporter.
	And no, I haven't carried a gun either.
	And I thought about that.
	And I thought, I bet Scott Besson hasn't carried one either because he's got an army of people to protect him all the time that are armed.
	That was before he got into government even.
	He was somebody who was very, very wealthy with George Soros, and he's got his own army of bodyguards who are armed to protect him.
	He doesn't need that.
	And so you have people who grow up and or live in that kind of a scenario.
	They don't see the need for self-defense because they've got an army of paid people who do it for them.
	And they really can't sympathize with what we're doing.
	Especially if they're coming from New York.
	They spent all their life in New York and never touched a gun.
	They really don't really understand what's going on with it.
	And they never, I mean, having to show a force, the guards around you, it's not just that you're protected.
	It's that you'll never even see it because the bad characters, I always equate them to like bullies in school.
	The bad guys aren't looking for a fight.
	They're looking for a pushover.
	And any bit of resistance, perceived or otherwise, they're going to move on.
	They're not, you know, if they believe for a minute that you might have a firearm, they're not going to bother you.
	They're going to look, they're going to look.
	They want the easiest target.
	They're looking for, you know, all these, they're looking for pushovers.
	And I talk about home defense and I said, guys, all you got to do is make your home look a little more secure than the next house down the street because the robbers, the burglars are going to go for the easiest target.
	And that happens in personal safety when you're looking at personal threats against you.
	You know, I just tell people, just walk, walk like you mean it.
	When you're walking through an area that you're a little concerned, stand up tall, bold, walk with so much purpose, like you're ready to just take on the world.
	Because a bad character is going to look and say, I don't know who that is, but again, if you're walking with your shoulders down, slow, your head down, kind of plodding along, you just look, I mean, you look like an easy mark.
	That's right.
	Sometimes that's the difference.
	And, you know, the fight.
	Yeah, you're the weak animal on the edge of the herd right there.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The predator's going to pick you off with that.
	Most people I know that shoot and train and carry firearms, you can just look at them and you're not going to mess with them.
	They're not going to draw them.
	They're never going to be in a situation to draw the firearm because the fight's not coming to them.
	The fight's going to the weak character.
	So, you know, the more we can do to get people who feel or may feel vulnerable to just pause, you don't need to go out and buy a firearm.
	Just go to a training center and take a class.
	They will walk you through everything.
	They'll provide you with a firearm to try and get good instruction, do it properly, and see how you feel.
	See if it's for you.
	You know, it's, it's.
	Well, tell us a little bit about your products.
	You're free to do a commercial here.
	Tell us a little bit about how these things operate and what your design objectives are for it.
	And how they maybe are, I've seen a lot of these.
	I don't know if that's your product or not, that you wouldn't know that that's a safe.
	It looks like a bookshelf or something like that.
	Well, ours do look like safes.
	And what we do, we take 25 years of building military armories into a line of consumer products.
	Our safes are smaller and they're lightweight.
	And that's one of the biggest points of difference of us.
	Gun safes are big, heavy boxes because they believe when people see heavy, they think security.
	There's nothing.
	Weight has nothing to do with security.
	Gun safes are breached with a circular saw and a carbide blade.
	If you look at any bit of crime data, they simply ignore the locks.
	They cut a hole in the side of the safe.
	My safes are, you know, the same thing can happen, but our safes are small, modular, shallow, designed to go into closets, designed to go into discrete locations.
	And then we store firearms per military principles where it's straight line access to every firearm.
	You open the door of my safe and you've got straight line, one arm, one gun.
	You're never digging through guns.
	Everything is, you can glance at the safe.
	You know everything's there.
	And we also integrate gun and gear storage.
	You know, it's a very modular, scalable system.
	Our gun safes in the military are referred to as the Lego rack and the Tetris rack because the armorers just start at the bottom of each one and just build like Legos.
	They build exactly what they need in every single cabinet to solve their problem.
	Our consumer products do the same thing.
	Our most recent breakthrough is what we call HSFA locking, high-stress, fast-access locking.
	We were hosting a training event just to learn more about access, to learn more about scenarios that unfold.
	And we were doing force-on-force training in a shoot house where we were simulating home invasions and office break-ins.
	And we determined when you trigger someone into fight or flight.
	And these guys were all experienced shooters, but we could trigger them into that panic mode.
	They could not open a simple gun safe.
	The buttons, they could, because when you go fight or flight, you lose fine motor skills.
	You develop tunnel vision.
	Your cognitive ability is reduced.
	So I got back from that event and a day later, I had this new lock design drawn up.
	Within six months, it was incorporated across our entire line.
	And it's a locking solution.
	It's a very simple, very secure, but it's designed to give you the fastest possible access when you're under a very high stress.
	Like if somebody, home invasion, you've got a second and a half, two seconds, maybe somebody's shooting at you, you're in panic mode.
	Our locking solution puts you in a position to retrieve your firearm very quickly and defend yourself.
	That's the newest thing we've done.
	So how does it open up?
	It's just a push-button locks, which releases the safe.
	And you simply, it's a handle.
	You just turn a handle, open the door.
	Ergonomically, we position all the guns so that, and we have videos on how to set up your safes for fastest possible access, whether it's a rifle or a handgun.
	And it positions a firearm so I retrieve the firearm.
	I retrieve it.
	Like for me, if it's an AR-15 left-hand on grip, it comes up.
	And in one simple motion, I'm in a ready position to defend myself.
	With handguns, the door accessing is a little different.
	Again, we're positioning things so the safe pops open.
	When the firearm comes out of the safe, you are in a low-ready position or high-ready, depending on the location of the safe.
	But it's, we're the only company that really thinks about the ergonomics and the actual flow of what people are doing when they need to access a firearm very, very quickly.
	So we really, and this goes back to our military, working with the Marine Corps, their reaction force teams, working with special forces, the high-speed teams where everything has to be seconds.
	And it has to be, you know, the old slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
	We follow that idea that the simplest path is usually the best.
	What we do is very simple.
	It's just nobody in firearm storage ever thought about it.
	Gun safes, nothing wrong with gun safes.
	They're just all the same.
	It's a big box full of little W's and you pack all your guns in there.
	We also do not, we do not offer fire ratings on our core products.
	Fire ratings are nonsense.
	You can get it out quickly.
	You can get it out quickly.
	If there's a fire, you can get it out.
	The whole fire rating system, the whole fire rating system is not honest.
	I've posted a lot on this.
	It is a horribly flawed system.
	No, your guns will not survive in a hot fire.
	They won't.
	And even if they look okay, you'll never know how hot they got.
	Your hardened steel is not hardened.
	Your annealed barrel may not be annealed.
	You're never going to shoot them again.
	We do make one, we call it the true safe.
	It's a double-walled, cement-filled safe.
	We make it to prove a point that if you want fire safety, fire capacity, fire rating, this is what it takes.
	It's a beast.
	I mean, it's just under 2,000 pounds.
	When you buy it from us, we install it.
	We send a crew.
	They install it.
	You're never going to move this thing.
	Do people need it?
	No.
	We made it to prove a point.
	We do sell, and they're very popular with coin collectors we find, but we do sell a handful of them a month.
	But really, we made it just to show the gun industry, the world, this is what a fire rating is.
	This is what it takes.
	But you don't need a fire rating.
	The risk of your home burning down is so rare that going through all that nonsense and all that weight and all the materials they use are all banned from use in armory.
	So the drywall, the carpeting, the adhesives is all very corrosive.
	The reason the industry sells millions of dollars of anti-corrosion products is because the traditional gun safe is very corrosive.
	All of our products, our civilian, are all made to the same military standards.
	And we don't recommend using any of those products.
	You simply clean your guns properly, they're never going to corrode.
	And that's kind of our whole position in the consumer market.
	We are the, I don't want to say red-headed stepchild, but we're the guys, we're the outlier.
	We're the disruptive force in the industry trying to drive.
	We're trying to change an industry that's just been doing the same thing for 65 years.
	Your perspective is very different.
	You're looking at this as, how do I store this so I can get quick access to it instead of, you know, how do I make this thing withstand a hurricane and a fire and all the rest of this stuff, you know?
	And now, let me ask you, how do you go from a locked standpoint to being able to open it quickly?
	You were talking about pushing a button and getting it.
	Yes.
	Okay, so our locks are all, I mean, we have biometrics within our locks, but we would never, ever recommend use of a push, like, you know, biometric fingerprint readers.
	Those are for convenience only because if your hands are wet, it won't open.
	Your hands are dirty, it won't open.
	If you're wearing gloves, it won't open.
	We want everybody to use the keypad.
	Again, our fast access keypads work very well, but when you buy my safe, if you've got an under-the-bed safe for a shotgun, every night when you go to bed, turn the lights off.
	You're going to reach down quietly and smoothly, do your combination, open the safe and close it, go to bed.
	You're going to do that every night for the first 36 nights, and then you're going to do it every week.
	And what you're doing is you're building muscle memory just like a musician playing an instrument.
	And when you do that, once you go 36 days, you've now ingrained that.
	You've hardwired that in your subconscious.
	Regardless of your state, you're going to open that safe incredibly quickly and very smoothly.
	So that's, you know, we have a whole curriculum of train with your safe.
	People with handguns always, they practice their dry fire routines.
	They practice their draw.
	If you're actively, I mean, if you're concealed carry, if you're into this, you know, part of the Second Amendment, you should be every morning doing your dry fire routines.
	I sit on a slack line balancing just for added, I don't know, just a workout thing.
	And I do dry fire drills every morning.
	And I've been doing that for years because it's just getting those reps in is so important.
	Same thing with my locking system is every time you go, if you've got a small safe in your closet by your front door, which is a great location to store firearms, every time I pull a coat out, just reach in.
	I'm not even looking.
	I can open up that safe and remove a firearm in less than a second with my eyes closed because I've done it probably 2,000 times.
	And that's kind of how we look at the whole thing is the gun safe industry has a safe as a passive piece of equipment that's in your basement that you go to after your day is done with training or hunting or whatever you're doing.
	We look at firearm storage as integral to the process of defending your home, the process of defending your life.
	So we want that access, using that lock to be part of your process.
	It's another holster, in other words.
	Exactly.
	That's the term we've used, a holster for your home.
	And that's how we look at it.
	The other side of our system is gun and gear storage, the amount of gear.
	And this happened at the military first.
	We got involved with the military because they were fielding so much high-value gear, their armories just couldn't hold it.
	And part of our system is that ability to store gear behind, above, around with your firearms in a very organized manner.
	So we have a real advantage.
	Our systems, when you open the doors up of a safe that's really, really decked out and take a picture of it, everybody goes, holy cow, that looks good.
	And that's, you know, our, we made Inc. Magazine's fastest growing companies in America twice in three years.
	We never spent any money on advertising.
	It was all word of mouth.
	It was just photographs of what people were doing with our system.
	And it just went crazy.
	So it's, I think we're winning this idea that of, you know, for what we do, storage and security are integral to safety and, you know, home defense.
	And that really is the vulnerability that we have.
	You know, we have, if people don't use the firearms reasonably, then that opens us up to the attack on firearm ownership from a safety standpoint.
	So part of preserving the Second Amendment is preserving your life and preserving the safe storage of these items as well, isn't it?
	Absolutely.
	We always say if every firearm in America was properly secured, would we be fighting so hard for the Second Amendment?
	Because you're going to eliminate so many, what I call them stupid, so many, the accidental, the things you read about, you just, you just, you know, you roll your eyes, you drop your head.
	It's a tragedy, but just like, my God, it was so easy to prevent that.
	We live at a time now where there should never be a child getting access to a firearm or a friend at a party who's drunk.
	It's real easy now to keep firearms secured, yet very, very available to the authorized person.
	Yes.
	And of course, you know, we see elements of this when it comes to automobiles as well, right?
	And, you know, when people don't use automobiles responsibly, then that puts all of us in a position of having our rights stripped away with that.
	And of course, since so many people don't have experience with firearms at all like they do with cars, whenever they see something like that, they think that that is characteristic of everybody rather than just one irresponsible person.
	So it's really important for you personally, and it's important for us collectively to protect the Second Amendment.
	But the key thing is for your own use.
	And so I really like the idea that you got that it's another holster that's there, that you train with it to be able to open it up very quickly.
	That's a great idea.
Secure It! 00:08:40
	Again, the company is, yes, go ahead.
	Sorry.
	It's Secure It Tactical.
	Yeah, we're working hard to get this message out.
	We're slowly winning it.
	It's just not easy.
	We're trying to change the way people think, and that takes time.
	It just does.
	But we're slowly winning this war.
	Yes, yes.
	And so the company, again, folks, is Secure It.
	What is your website?
	Is it Secure Italy?
	Yes, secureItgunStorage.com.
	And then Secure It Tactical is our military site.
	If you just Google the word Secure It, we're all over the web.
	That's great.
	Thank you so much.
	Fascinating story.
	And we'll be looking at it ourselves, I'm sure.
	So thank you very much, Tom.
	I appreciate it.
	Tom, Quick.
	Thank you.
	And Secure It Gun Storage.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And by the way, I should mention that they don't sell these in the stores because, as you heard, they've got a lot of training information on the site.
	And that really does show how to use the product, how to train with the product.
	So they're very much integrated into an online presentation.
	So just check out the website.
	You can find them online if you look for Secure It, I-T.
	Making sense, common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Joining us now is James Bovard.
	You can find him at jimbovard.com.
	He writes for a variety of outlets and has for many, many years.
	He is a libertarian, or we could say a classical liberal, because that's something that Stephen Miller's wife doesn't seem to understand.
	She thinks that's the same thing as, of course, there's a lot of things that they don't understand, aren't there, Jim?
	But he had a very interesting op-ed piece on Mises.org.
	The latest federal killing in Minnesota echoes Ruby Ridge.
	And I think he's really right in a lot of different ways when we talk about how it is similar to that.
	You know, if you're around at that point in time, that should be etched indelibly into your memory, what happens with Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians and things like that.
	But, you know, even at that time, a lot of people were not really following that very closely.
	And of some of the people who are following it, I think they've forgotten the details of it.
	They certainly have forgotten the lessons of it because there are a lot of parallels here in this.
	And we need to learn those lessons so we can stop repeating these things over and over again.
	Thank you for joining us, Jim.
	Hey, thanks very much for having me on.
	Thanks.
	And thanks for not forgetting about Ruby Ridge.
	How could I?
	It's amazing.
	Gary Spence did a great job in that trial.
	And again, what an interesting character he is in terms of defending Randy Weaver.
	And well, not defending him, but in terms of getting some compensation for him.
	But you can never compensate really for what he lost.
	Let's talk a little bit about the parallels, but tell us, you put up a tweet that really went viral about this, which is the basis of your article.
	I guess that's why you decided to write the article.
	You had a lot of people take exception to you drawing parallels.
	Exception, yeah.
	I mean, that's, you know, with their pitchforks and torches.
	Yes.
	Yeah, it was interesting.
	If you go back to folks who were politically conscious in the 1990s, people who were skeptical about government power, both liberals and conservatives and libertarians, Ruby Ridge was a rallying cry for what happens when the government is off a leash and when federal agents have a license to kill.
	As federal judge Alex Kaczynski said, the Ruby Ridge case, you had the federal FBI snipers were given basically a 007 license to go out and kill people.
	Yeah, that's right.
	The basic rules of engagement were: if you see the adult males outside the cabin, kill them.
	No warning or anything, even though they had never fired upon the federal, they never fired upon the FBI.
	We've seen that over and over again.
	I talked about how, apparently, with this absolute immunity, these people are all 007s.
	I said, I don't know.
	Maybe that refers to their IQ.
	Well, I had that impression.
	I was wondering about that with some of the feedback I was getting.
	It was interesting to see the absolute instant hatred for drawing a parallel between what happened at Ruby Ridge and the killing of Alex Predi in Minneapolis last Saturday.
	And it was funny.
	It's been a while since I had that much visibility on Twitter.
	And it's interesting how the standard insults have changed because now it just seems like about 40% of the responses were just like, you're a retard.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Or okay, boomer.
	I'm thinking, is this the best you can do?
	Is this the best deprecation you have in your arsenal?
	You are a retard.
	And you try to go back and forth with these people, and then they start flinging the F-word in every direction.
	And, you know, I like George Carlin.
	There's a time and a place for the F-word.
	It can be effective.
	But when you're just kind of, when this is all you have, like, you know, well, they don't even know what deprecation is.
	They'd have to look that up if they could even start.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Well, so, yeah.
	So most, so the most common retort was retard.
	And the second most common report was boomer.
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's it.
	Yeah.
	Boomer.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, okay, so I know how to read.
	You know, there was, yeah, there was, there was some guy who kept attacking me, and he was making such ignorant comments.
	I finally said, you know, maybe what we need is a GoFundMe drive to get you hooked on phonics.
	You know, you get the software programming so you can read.
	That didn't seem to make him happy.
	So, you know, I tried.
	I tried.
	There were other folks that said, you know, good luck with your grammar, you know, because they were just, if you're going to call someone a retard, you should be able to spell your entire sentence correctly.
	You know, otherwise it kind of boomerangs.
	You know, it's not a good look.
	You reply to them, okay, boomerang.
	There you go.
	So what was the tweet?
	What exactly did you say in the tweet?
	Oh, that's a good question.
	Let me pull it up here.
	I've got this reopened.
	It was interesting.
	I'd first commented on the Ruby Ridge thing, first parallel on late Saturday.
	And then I was getting so much hostile feedback.
	So what I did, this is an article in the parallels.
Systematic Organization Of Hatred 00:10:17
	In both cases, the feds suppressed evidence, brazenly lied about what happened, exaggerated the threat to federal agents, and offered bizarre justifications for their killings.
	Yeah.
	And that is, let's see.
	Yeah.
	And that's on my list.
	I made a similar list like that.
	The needlessly aggressive use of force, which seems to be a hallmark of our government anymore.
	Yeah, and that was a point that I made in the Mises article on how the latest killing echoed Ruby Ridge.
	But it's interesting because you have so many people who are conservatives who understood after January 6th, 2021, after the Biden folks came in and vilified everyone, every Trump supporter who'd been in the same zip code as the U.S. Capitol and tried to ruin their lives.
	And you had the FBI formally classifying all these January 6th cases, 800 or more of them, as terrorism cases.
	That's right.
	Because someone walked into a government building.
	Yeah, I talked about that.
	And one in particular, I think one of the most egregious ones I saw was you had a couple of elderly guys that were there, and they had their middle-aged, one of them, middle-aged son.
	And they walk up, the doors are open going into the Capitol building, and they got a couple of cops who said, is there a restroom around here somewhere?
	Yeah, sure.
	Let's go right here.
	They go in and use the restroom.
	And that's all they did.
	They come back out.
	And as they're getting ready to go back out the same way they came in, there was a female cop and she says, no, no, no, go this way.
	She's pointing, trying to get them to go onto the floor of the Capitol building, trying to trap them.
	And they did charge them because that's why that came out was because they actually wound up charging them with that.
	You would think that they would have a memory of that and a perspective of it, but they've got like the memory of a fruit fly.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	They can't understand these different principles and the similarities that are there.
	And that's a big part of it.
	It's a big part of the group think that's there, the tribalism that is there, is that they're going to go through with a fine-toothed comb, and they're going to identify how this person over here was a bad person.
	We've got an ad hominem attack, and they're not part of our tribe.
	So it was justified.
	That's basically when you peel back all the layers of this onion, that's what it really gets down to when you see this rabid response that I've seen from a lot of people on social media.
	Yeah, it goes back to what historian Henry Adams said 100 years ago.
	Politics has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
	Yeah.
	And it was intriguing to see the push-button hatred after the protester got killed.
	And to see, and it was funny because I was posting stuff on Facebook and then they're on Twitter.
	And so late on Saturday, I said, well, you know, there was a TV station there in Minneapolis.
	I think it might have been an ABC station that said that actually, if you look at the video, it looks like the federal agent had taken away the guy's gun before he was shot.
	And oh my God, you would think I had just made the biggest heresy in the world because the outrage.
	How could anybody say that?
	And it was like I was trying.
	It was almost like we were supposed to think the federal agents had somehow performed a miracle by saving everybody from getting shot by this guy.
	Was that Stephen Miller or was that Bobino?
	I think it was Bobino who said the agents did a really good job because they stopped this guy from killing police.
	And I'm thinking by that standard, they're going to kill everybody at the demonstration.
	Well, you know, it really has, that's one of the things I remember most about Ruby Ridge and then about Waco as well, was how people lined up as to whether or not they liked David Koresh and his group.
	If they didn't like him, oh, yeah, do whatever you want to to him.
	Uh, I was, you know, I'm a Christian, and so I looked at that and I saw these people said, Well, you know, we don't like this guy, we think he's his theology is aberrant, and they do weird things in their church and stuff.
	So, yeah, yeah, go after this guy.
	I'm not part of it, I don't want to be associated with him.
	And so, they basically were cheering the incineration of men, women, and children.
	It's like, what in the world is going on here?
	But, of course, you see that now over and over again, like you point out, it's the systematic organization of hatred, you know, which is naturally.
	And it was the same thing with Ruby Ridge.
	Part of what happened is the feds were very quick to vilify their victims, being the Randy Weaver and his wife primarily.
	They had some bad ideas, and in the writing that I did about it, I was very careful not to say, Well, you know, maybe they've got a point.
	No, no, no, no.
	I mean, these are bad ideas, but then there are a couple people out there who think that I have bad ideas.
	That's right.
	So, you know, I don't want to give the feds a license to kill people with bad ideas, but this is what a lot of the people who want to want the government to fight extremism, this is what it turns out to be.
	People who have different ideas than you do, you say, Well, you know, take them out.
	You know, I mean, it's hard, it's hard to have free speech if someone's hateful.
	And what's the difference, a definition of hateful disagrees with me?
	That's right.
	But we've seen that ever since the Clinton administration.
	And of course, you know, when we look at the way people responded first to the killing of Renee Goode, what I noticed was the MAGA people came out and said, Oh, she's LGBT, and she was part of an organization that got some Soros money or whatever.
	And it's like, okay, well, you do realize Scott Bessant is part of that LGBT movement, and you do realize he got a lot of Soros money, didn't he?
	He worked as a partner with the guy for a long time.
	And yet, you know, they're completely blind to that because now this guy is whitewashed, he's baptized, or whatever, because Trump picked him and he's working with Trump.
	And the same type of stuff, if you equated Ashley Babbitt to Renee Goode, which I think was a good comparison because they were both shot at point-blank range when they were no threat to anyone, and yet they came back and it said, Yeah, but look, you know, she's I don't like what she did with this or what she says about that, I don't like her lifestyle or whatever.
	So, again, it's the demonization of this kind of thing.
	And now we've seen it.
	They kept digging and digging.
	It took a lot longer for them to find something on Alex Predi.
	But what they were able to find on him was a BBC video where he got into a fight with some Border Patrol agents or something like that.
	I don't know if you've seen that or not.
	That went viral yesterday.
	Yeah, I haven't watched all of it, but I've seen it.
	But here's my story.
	The taillight out, and it's like, okay, but they didn't kill him that day.
	And would that justify him being killed that day, even?
	And he wasn't doing that the day that he was killed.
	He wasn't doing anything like that.
	Yeah, there was a story that I wrote that came out on the day before he was shot that said, look, I mean, you have protests, you're going to have assholes.
	Because there's almost always people who behave like assholes at protests.
	And the same thing if you've got police, you're also going to have a hallway.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	So there's an interesting point here on the looking at what Alex Predi did before he got shot.
	So we don't know the names of the two federal agents who shot and killed him.
	And I would be very interested to see what their records were, to see if they had a record of abuse of force or if they had shot somebody else before.
	Or if they were new hires.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, this is a real big ⁇ this is something which comes up in big cities.
	If some cop shoots someone, especially if the cop has shot people before, and especially if there was any kind of pattern to the cops' killings or shootings, this is very germane to making any kind of judgment.
	But the Trump people have decided we have no right.
	I mean, I don't know when or how federal agents got their right to kill anonymously.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	But this is what it is at this point.
	And it's funny, but I mean, it's kind of a variation of what we saw a couple months ago.
	There was a lot of controversy initially about how our War Department had done a second hit on the survivors out there near Venezuela.
	And, you know, there was video of that killing.
	And I guess it was being seen on Capitol Hill.
	Then all of a sudden, our Secretary of War Hagset comes out and says, well, of course we can't make that policy because confidentials got this and that.
	It's like, you know, so it's a license to kill.
	Yeah.
	But the thing is, you know, he put out and bragged about their shots against these boats in the past.
	And I said that about the, this is, I think, wasn't the circle back where they killed the shipwrecked people.
	I think that was the very first strike they did.
	And I said of the video that he put out proudly, I said, that's criminal.
	That's an act of war.
	They didn't interdict that.
	There's clearly processes for them to check people if they suspect them of being drug dealers.
	And again, I don't agree with any of the war on drugs stuff, but they have their own rules about that, and they violated all the rules.
Marshals' False Storyline 00:10:42
	Well, and it's interesting trying to figure out if there's laws or constitutional rights that the Trump administration is going to recognize and uphold.
	Yeah.
	For anything.
	Yeah.
	I mean, because it's, you know, trying to understand what went down in Minneapolis, I mean, it's amazing that the first response by the DHS, by Bovino and people like that was like, well, people have got no right to know their names and we're going to shift them out of the state so they can't be held legally liable by Minnesota officials.
	It's like, where did they get the right to kill in Minnesota?
	I mean, this is not a recognized federal right.
	But there, again, it goes back to Ruby Ridge, and you had the FBI sniper who killed the mother holding her baby by the cabin door.
	I'll never forget his name.
	It's been burned in my memory.
	Lon Horiuchi.
	And you had Janet Reno and the Clinton Justice Department and the Clinton President Clinton moving hell in high water to block any prosecution by the state of Idaho of the FBI sniper, even though a confidential justice department report said that his shot that killed Vicki Weaver was totally illegal and unjustified.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	Recount some of the details about Ruby Ridge because it has been a while for people and even people who were following it at the time.
	You know, there was a lot.
	At the time, we didn't, the internet can be both good and bad.
	I got to say that, you know, when Ruby Ridge happened and then when you had the very long standoff there with a branch of Indians, it was a bit difficult to get information because the only thing you could get was mainstream media whitewashing of stuff.
	And we did have a bulletin board that I was a part of at the time, but there was no internet, right?
	So people in the area were getting information and putting it out.
	And of course, it wasn't verified, but of course, we knew that the stuff coming from mainstream media was verified BS.
	So it was interesting to look at these things in real time.
	But go back and recount some of the things with Ruby Ridge that you see are parallels to what's happening here.
	Okay, well, I'll start giving a thumbnail Ruby Ridge here.
	It started when an undercover alcohol tobacco and firearms ATF agent entrapped Randy Weaver into selling a sawed-off shotgun.
	It was then on August 21st, 1992, three U.S. Marshals dressed in ninja outfits and with face masks illegally intruded onto Weaver's land and ambushed Weaver's 14-year-old son and a 25-year-old family friend, Kevin Harris.
	The Marshals fired some machine guns at them and killed the boy's dog.
	A firefight ensued.
	A U.S. Marshal was killed.
	As the boy was running back home towards his family's cabin, a marshal shot him in the back and killed him.
	And it was a big issue then in the Justice Department confidential report was that the Marshal Service never separated the different marshals who had killed the boy and been in the firefight and gave them, thereby giving them a chance to create their own cover story, which was later proven to be completely false.
	But so the marshals gave a storyline to the FBI that made the FBI panic.
	The next day, FBI snipers arrived.
	Within an hour of them taking position, every adult in the Weaver cabin was either dead or severely wounded, even though they never fired a shot at the FBI.
	You had FBI sniper Horyuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back as he stood outside his shack and then fired a shot that killed Vicki Weaver by the cabin door as she was holding her baby.
	Now, the FBI initially said that they were justified in killing Vicki Weaver because she'd been in the front yard firing at the FBI helicopter.
	That was a complete scam, and that fell apart.
	And so once that story fell apart, the FBI said they killed her accidentally.
	That sounds like Christine Holmes' thing.
	The agents were stuck in the snow and they were attacking.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	They're just making this stuff up, the contempt for everybody.
	It reminds me of what Jake Tappert just said to one of these guys.
	The guy is going on and on about what happened with this Alex Preddy thing.
	And he goes, you do realize there's video of this, don't you?
	Well, and that's the only reason why we've got a chance at hell of getting the truth on this.
	Because if you think of the initial storyline that the Trump top officials put out on the Alex Predi shooting, he had his nine millimeter pistol out and he was assaulting law enforcement.
	They were, you know, he was there to massacre them.
	And, you know, to the New York Times credit, you know, within an hour of the Trump top officials saying that, you know, the New York Times was saying, you know, actually, there's videos of something completely different.
	And so many papers came around that quite quickly.
	But you had the Trump people claiming to this absolute nonsense version that would whitewash the federal agents who killed Predi.
	And it's like, okay, if you're going to lie so brazenly, why should we trust you on anything?
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, it is brazen.
	It is arrogant.
	It's an insult to our intelligence, isn't it?
	Well, it is, except for people on Twitter.
	Yeah.
	Because a lot of them really can't insult their intelligence.
	Because they're just, you know, it was like, you know, but, you know, but Stephen Miller said this, and, you know, it was like it was handed down from Mount Sinai.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, well, no, actually, you know, that's not what happened.
	So you're calling them liars?
	Well, you know, use your word.
	Yeah, that's right.
	You got a better word than liar.
	They were grossly mistaken.
	Yeah.
	But so the an interesting thing with this was that there were a lot of people in the Justice Department who were very unhappy how it went down with Ruby Ridge.
	And there was an internal investigation that came out with a 500-page report.
	The government kept that secret.
	And in early 1995, FBI chief Louis Free does a press conference and announces basically whitewashes all the FBI policymakers and the snipers for the killing of Vicki Weaver and everything else that happened in that case.
	So a couple days later, I did a piece for the Wall Street Journal called No Accountability at the FBI.
	A couple weeks later, Lewis Free attacked me in the article and in response he wrote to the Wall Street Journal.
	And so, you know, it was funny.
	There was a friend of mine from Argentina who I'd done some work with.
	And on the day that the Lewis Free letter condemning me came out in the Wall Street Journal, he calls it and says, well, I just wanted to say goodbye because, you know, he's from Argentina.
	He figures, you know, I'm not going to be around very long.
	And I said, oh, you know, I can't imagine the federal officials ever doing anything improper like that.
	But we're starting to approach that point, perhaps.
	I don't know.
	There you go.
	But so, so I kept digging, and I eventually got a copy of that 500-page confidential report.
	And I wrote about that for the Wall Street Journal.
	I also wrote about the case for Playboy and American Spectator.
	And I think my story is.
	Let me interrupt you a second.
	How did you get that 500-page report?
	I mean, did they give that up with a FOIA request?
	No, no, no.
	They did not give it up.
	I was going to say, I wouldn't think they would.
	Yeah.
	No, it was look, it was not given up.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	You found it through some alternative sources.
	Well, I came into possession.
	Okay, there you go.
	How about that?
	That's the way you put it.
	Yeah.
	Like that.
	But no, it was Pentagon paper style.
	And having that report, it just completely destroyed the entire storyline the feds had created going back two years or more earlier.
	And it made a mockery of Lewis Free's claims.
	And they finally suspended some officials at FBI.
	And the top official of the FBI Violent Crimes and Major Offender Section pled guilty, was sent to prison for destroying evidence on the Ruby Ridge case.
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	These are some details I didn't know.
	That's good.
	I'm glad somebody went to jail for somebody.
	Yeah, it may have been the evidence that he destroyed would have showed that Lon Horiuchi intentionally killed Vicki Weaver.
	Or maybe it didn't show that.
	We don't know because it was destroyed and the cover-up was successful.
	And they gave him a medal, didn't they, Lon Horiuchi?
	I don't know, but there was a story which I did.
	Commendation or whatever.
	Maybe, I'm not sure, but what the Marshal Service did is wait until three and a half years after the Marshals there killed Sandy Weaver and then gave their highest valor commendation to the Marshals who had been at Ruby Ridge in early 1996.
	And I wrote a Wall Street Journal story about that.
	There was a lot of pushback among some of their editors, but that's a different story.
	But no, it was brazen that they were, it was, was it Wyatt Earp who was a U.S. Marshal?
	Yeah, I think someone like that.
	He was a movie consultant.
Supreme Court Controversies 00:15:36
	Right.
	I mean, I'm not, it'd be kind of rude to stop the interview and do an internet search, a Google search.
	But no, but so it was utterly brazen.
	But and it's just, it's just interesting to see how many lies.
	I mean, lying and killing goes together like ham and eggs.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	And you have that with the federal agencies like you have it with the mafia.
	Yeah.
	So, and well, certainly if somebody's going to kill somebody as serious as that crime is, they're going to lie about it.
	And so that's what we see when the government does it.
	You know, it's kind of interesting.
	We talk about the situation in Venezuela.
	One of the things that I've said is that, you know, Madison said the weapons of defense abroad always become instruments of tyranny at home.
	And I think that applies to their attitudes towards killing people, their attitudes towards war, whether it's foreign or domestic.
	I think once they have crossed that Rubicon in their mind, like they did with Venezuela, it's just a matter of time before they start doing it domestically as well.
	And I think it's kind of amazing, too, when you look at border patrol and immigration control and all the rest of the stuff.
	They're so focused on their political border, but they don't think there's any boundaries whatsoever in law for what they do.
	So these are people who say, yeah, we got to have borders and so forth, but there's no boundaries for us.
	I mean, Trump has even said that.
	You know, he was asked that question.
	He had no problem about saying, well, no, I don't think there's any restrictions that I have any rules, any international rules or laws that I need.
	I'm constrained by my morality.
	Oh, that was so comforting.
	There are so many things which Trump says which are just, you know.
	Yeah, that was a golden moment.
	That's kind of like Nixon saying, well, when the president does it, it's not illegal.
	Yeah, but it's going back to those border patrol agents and the ICE folks.
	I mean, it's almost as if those federal agents need to have absolute power in order to preserve the American way of life.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Except that the American way of life and federal absolute power, it did not used to go together.
	That's right.
	Well, we just had that a week or two ago.
	We had some Israeli billionaire named Slomo, and he said, we're going to have to destroy the First Amendment to preserve it, right?
	So we've got to destroy the rule of law in order to have America.
	We've got to destroy the Constitution and everything else, right?
	That's the logic behind what these people are telling us.
	Yeah, I mean, and some of the Trump actions on freedom of speech have been appalling.
	Oh, yeah.
	But same with a lot of the other things they've done.
	But it's just part of what's fascinating to me, going back to the parallels of Ruby Ridge and the killing on Saturday.
	What were the rules of engagement for the DHS agents?
	There was a video I saw online.
	Bovino was talking to the agents, giving them a pep talk, and he was telling them, if anybody touches you, then take them down, arrest them, just do maximum penalties for them.
	And this is the same attitude.
	Christy Noam said something similar, if some protester merely touches you, boom, that's assault, so on and so forth.
	Well, you've seen the videos of these, a lot of the federal agents being super aggressive with people.
	Yeah.
	Trotting them down, bashing them, assaulting them, spraying their face for no reason with the pepper spray.
	I mean, this is such an absolute disparity in standards of conduct.
	You know, how are people supposed to be free when federal agents have the right to beat them?
	That's right.
	I remember years ago, there was a protest at Berkeley.
	I don't even remember what it was for.
	And you had all these people that were sitting cross-legged on the ground, and you had this fat cop go along with a pepper spray right in front of their face and just spraying them.
	And that outraged everybody, and rightfully so.
	It's like, what are you doing that for?
	And yet, you know, we have the same situation happening now with these ICE agents.
	There's that one picture where they had this person pinned to the ground.
	A guy puts the spray can right in his face or her face and sprays them with that.
	There was another one after the shooting of Renee Goode.
	I've played that multiple times, a video I've played multiple times on the show, where you got this guy going around kicking.
	They chalked up the sidewalk with her name and things like that, and then put some candles there.
	And you probably saw that.
	He goes on kicking the candles over.
	And the guy says, what are you doing?
	What are you doing?
	And the guy gets right up in his face and gets like about an inch from actually hitting him with his body.
	He says, get back, get back, get back.
	Keeps pushing him back.
	Just thuggish schoolyard behavior.
	It's just beyond belief.
	Trying to goad the guy into touching him so he can go off on this guy.
	He and all the other ones around there, it's going to be a gangbang if he just lays a finger on this guy.
	And he's doing everything he can to provoke that.
	And we've seen them coming up to people knocking phones out of their hands because somehow it's now a rule that if you are photographing the police, which you have a right to do, Supreme Court has said that over and over.
	I believe it's the Supreme Court.
	There's been multiple court cases.
	I don't know if it got up to the Supreme Court or not, but you have a right to film the police.
	We all know that that should be there, whether the law says that or not.
	But they come up to people and threaten them, threaten to put them in a database, knock the phone out of their hands and all the rest of this stuff.
	Yep.
	The Trump DHS has been very explicit that there is no right to videotape federal agents in public.
	To videotape them, even when they're wearing masks, just to dox them.
	And that is considered to be a crime.
	And the federal agents are entitled to use force to shut that down.
	And as you mentioned, the Supreme Court has not made this explicit, but there have been a number of federal appeals court rulings that said, look, people have got a right to videotape the police in public.
	I mean, there's a certain point where the videotaping could become too aggressive or too interfering.
	But I mean, there are, you know, there's lots of the Trump supporters who would like to have a five-mile zone of no cameras.
	Yeah.
	I guess are they going to go around, Jim, and are they going to arrest Flock and Amazon for the ring cameras and stuff?
	Because we got cameras everywhere in our society now, whether you like it or not.
	And most of us aren't wearing masks when that's happening as well.
	Well, and it's just, it's interesting how you have you've got two sides here.
	One, you've got total secrecy for the feds.
	They've got their face masks.
	Nobody's got no agent's got a name.
	People got no right to know the name of the agents that killed somebody.
	And on the flip side, you've got total surveillance.
	You've got these agents going around and sticking cameras in people's faces and saying that their face and name will be in a database now.
	So the terrorists or whatever protests or database.
	Somebody does that to me.
	I tell them, spell my name right.
	Let me give it to you just in case.
	Yeah, I mean, it's kind of late for me to worry about being in those databases.
	That's right.
	You know, their society, I guess, Jim, we could look at it.
	Their model for society is a one-way mirror, right?
	You know, where they are on the opposite side of the mirror.
	You know, you look at it and you don't see them at all.
	You only see yourself that's there as they're putting you in the databases that are there, but you're not allowed to see anything they have.
	Yeah, and it's important to keep in mind.
	Donald Trump has often said he's going to make America great again, but he never says he's going to make America free again or make America constitutional.
	And Trump's idea of American greatness seems to be focused on the presidential power.
	Yes.
	Yeah, he's going to make all power.
	He's going to make America a monarchy again.
	Well, and what's appalling to me is you've got so many conservatives who are cheerleading for that.
	And I'm just thinking, are you that historically illiterate?
	Exactly.
	But to ask that question is to answer it.
	Yeah, what are you trying to conserve at this point?
	You know, we've had the terms neocon.
	We need to come up with something for the Trump cons or something like that, which says that they don't adhere to any principles of individual liberty or economic liberty or the rule of law or whatever.
	That's a Trump con.
	We're just here for loyalty to Trump because that gets us jobs.
	It gets us money.
	That's the highest freedom.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That is the highest freedom, having the opportunity to obey Donald Trump's orders.
	And it's like, and it's unfortunate because Trump has some good ideas.
	He's got some good policies.
	I had a story in the New York Post last Sunday on Trump's talking about banning the red light cameras and the speed cameras in Washington, D.C.
	I mean, those things are an absolute menace.
	They cost so many accidents.
	They've killed people.
	I didn't see that he said that.
	I would agree with that, but I don't think that he'll do it.
	I don't think so.
	Trump had not said that, but if someone in his transportation department has proposed to ban those ban those cameras, and it's a great example of how the government can be a scoundrel because what happens is you have those red light cameras put in, and in order to maximize revenue, what they do is shorten the yellow light.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	And then cause a lot of accidents and fatalities.
	So I agree.
	Yeah, I was surprised because I thought, wait a minute, does Trump ever even drive a car?
	You know, this is one of the things when you see Scott Besson.
	No, no.
	I mean, and this is so.
	My chauffeur has complained about this.
	This is a fascinating angle on it, too, because I assume that Trump has had bodyguards going back for the last 30 or 40 years.
	Oh, yeah, sure.
	And his absolute contempt for Second Amendment rights of anybody going to protest is supposed to disarm and put themselves at the mercy of the feds.
	I mean, this is such.
	And you can see that with that other elitist billionaire, Scott Besant, who gets a free password working for Soros from the MAGA people for some reason.
	And when he's saying, you know, I can't imagine anybody taking a gun to a protest or whatever.
	And it's like, he says, I've been at protests.
	I didn't take guns.
	I thought, I said to my wife, I said, they were probably protesting Besant.
	That's a good point.
	That's a good point.
	It's probably I get by Wall Street or something.
	Yeah, I mean, I've had the experience of being at protests where there were guns and protests where the guns were banned.
	And it's like, you know, it's life.
	It's life.
	I mean, guns are part of the American way of life, and it's also a symbol of American freedom.
	That's right.
	Yeah, I've said this multiple times on air since he said that.
	I said the safest protest I was at was a protest at the Alamo where they were trying to get the carry laws changed in Texas.
	And you had hundreds of people with rifles slung over their shoulders and police left everybody alone.
	It's a great deterrent to violence.
	Well, this is it.
	I mean, it was fascinating to see the absolute panic by the federal agents as soon as someone says, gun, gun, gun.
	Oh, we got to shoot him 10 times.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that was an absolute disgrace.
	Yeah.
	They were beating the hell out of this guy who they'd knocked to the ground unjustifiably.
	And then they panicked and killed him.
	And it's like, how in the hell anybody can uphold that kind of behavior or see it as a model or say, yeah, but he was a bad guy because he voted for Tim Waltz.
	You know, whatever.
	I don't care.
	That's right.
	And I don't care about what happened in that video from the BBC that was released on Wednesday, went viral on Wednesday.
	I really, that's not relevant to this particular case.
	First of all, I said, look, you can see the gun is stuck in the back of his waistband there in his back.
	It's like, yeah, and he didn't pull it out, right?
	So what's the deal?
	They didn't kill him either, you know?
	So if they can deal with that, yeah, it's totally appalling to see Trump talking as if anybody with a gun should be presumed guilty, especially if they've got a second magazine.
	And how many bullets do the cops carry?
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, well, I was at the Bundy Ranch standoff there on the ground.
	Oh, that was a great one.
	Yeah, it was.
	That was a big win.
	Because what was good about that, it wasn't just a protest.
	They had a specific thing that they wanted.
	They said, we want the cows back, you know, so that you stole from us.
	Okay.
	And so it was very interesting.
	But one of the things that came up in the aftermath of that, when they came after several people and sent some of them to jail, they had a picture of a guy who was up above on the sniper on the road, trying to present him as a sniper.
	And he was down.
	This is one of the protesters' side.
	And he was down behind this concrete barrier there, you know, road barrier.
	And so was a woman behind him.
	And so in the court case, I said, so why is the defense attorney, they were trying to make this guy out to be the aggressor and the only threat that was there?
	And the defense attorney says, so why were you bending down?
	Sorry, you can't ask that question.
	You know, obviously he's hiding behind the concrete barrier because they were threatening to shoot us, right?
	And they said, you can't ask that question.
	Well, that's a case I wrote about for USA Today.
	And it's fascinating.
	A crux of that case, and part of the reason there were armed people there was the Bundies feared the FBI had put snipers around their house to kill them.
	Yes.
	This is like happened at Ruby Ridge.
	Yeah, they did.
	There was actually some of the guys there cleaned out a sniper's nest one night there.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I wasn't aware of that, but I know there was a federal judge.
	Her first name was Gloria, Hispanic lady.
	But so the so the feds, I think in their retrial of maybe the Bundies themselves, the feds finally admitted that, yes, they did have snipers around the land or the home of the Bundies.
	And so there was a real threat.
	Whereas what the Obama people had done was try to portray them and then the Trump people as well in the first strike is to portray those protesters as just kind of complete liars, untrustworthy troublemakers, because they were saying there were FBI snipers around their house.
	And of course, that's nonsense.
	But when it finally came out, the federal judge was so furious, I think that she just threw the entire case out of court.
Threats and Lawsuits 00:05:40
	That's right.
	They would have hung all of them.
	I mean, you know, if there had been, there was a BLM agent who became a whistleblower.
	Oh, he was great.
	He was great.
	Yes.
	And war hadn't gone.
	If it hadn't been for him, that judge would have railroaded it.
	They did already send several people to prison for long prison sentences.
	And I didn't follow up on that to see if they got a pardon with it or not.
	But basically, with the whistleblower's information, she realized that they'd been lying to her, and that got her angry.
	And so she acquitted them with prejudice or whatever.
	So they couldn't come after them again.
	But she had been really rough in terms of shutting down obvious questions like that.
	Why is this person hiding and crouched down behind a concrete barrier like that?
	And other people who didn't have guns were doing the same thing.
	And it was simply the answer is because I was there, heard them yelling, get back, disperse, or we're going to shoot.
	And they had their guns pointed at us.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Well, it's good that didn't make you lose faith in the system.
	I didn't have any faith in the system to start with.
	So, yeah, I didn't lose any more faith in the system.
	No, I don't have any faith in the system at all.
	That's great.
	Well, tell us what you're up to.
	And I see a book there in the back, Last Rights.
	Is that a recent publication that you have?
	That's the most recent book I've got.
	Last Rights.
	It's an update of all the different government crimes and abuses I did loss rights over 30 years ago.
	And Last Rights is how things have gotten a lot worse since 1994 when the loss rights came out.
	Yeah, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel now at this point, aren't we?
	Well, there's a lot of good examples to write about, but I don't know how much good it does.
	So I've got the books.
	I write for various think tanks, Mises, Libertarian Institute, Future of Freedom Foundation.
	I do stuff for New York Post.
	I do stuff for some magazines.
	I've done some stuff recently for a reason.
	So, you know, here and there, just trying to hustle and keep positive cash flow.
	And again, when you look at somebody who I've never seen more open contempt for the First Amendment than Donald Trump.
	I think he's surpassed Richard Nixon on this.
	The $10 billion lawsuit that he's got against Wall Street Journal that you've written for.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, Trump and his lawsuits is like $10 billion because you said I sent a birthday card.
	Yeah, here's the frickin card, okay?
	Well, yeah, but, you know, but I'm still suing you.
	It's like, I mean, there's this is called slapsuits.
	What's the Strategic lawsuit against public participation, I think is how the acronym goes.
	But Trump has done that so much.
	Okay, I mean, one of the things that was most astounding is that I think Trump was suing 60 Minutes because of how they edited an interview with Kamala Harris.
	I know, I know.
	And you had the White House press secretary threatening a massive lawsuit.
	Was it CBS did any editing of Trump's interview or with them recently?
	It's kind of like, so editing is now a crime or what?
	Yeah.
	Don't do any editing.
	Everybody has to do editing.
	I mean, the you got a time slide you got to fit this into.
	Yeah, I mean, if Trump was sparter, he would realize he needs an editor as much as anybody.
	Because, good Lord, I mean, you know, going on for two hours, it's like he's inspired by Fidel Castro.
	That's absolutely right.
	Yeah.
	So you got your ticket yet for the Melania premiere that's going to be today.
	If you buy a ticket, you can have a private screening because you'll be the only person in the theater.
	Well, this is going to be interesting.
	I mean, I hope that there's not a war to distract how the movie does badly.
	Well, it's kind of interesting.
	You know, we're talking about the lawsuits about don't talk about me and Jeffrey Epstein, things like that, because they threaten a lot of people, Melania did, with lawsuits as well as Donald Trump.
	And I think it's going to be kind of interesting what happens with Michael Wolf because they had threats of lawsuits for people who are repeating what Michael Wolf had said, essentially about Jeffrey Epstein.
	And I thought, well, why don't they sue him?
	He's the one who is the source of this information.
	So they threatened him with that.
	And he said, okay, that's it.
	I'm going to sue you.
	So he's kind of kicked that off.
	It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
	I think we'll get more information out of that than we will out of any of the Epstein documents that are sitting on Pam Bondi's desk, purportedly.
	Well, it's so brazen that the Trump folks have got total contempt for disclosure, contempt for federal law, contempt for their president's own promises and the top law enforcement officials promising.
	And it's like, okay, it's almost as if they have decided that they don't need any credibility with most Americans and almost all the media because they're so powerful or they're so wonderful or that they can get away with anything.
	So that's Nixon-like in a way, as you said earlier.
Common Man vs. Police State 00:03:30
	Yeah, it is.
	Absolutely.
	Well, he kind of got his start with Roger Stone, who's got a tattoo of Nixon on his back.
	That's one of the things I thought was amazing.
	I worked there at Infowars for a while and Rogers got that tattoo of Richard Nixon.
	How does that square with the idea of being libertarian?
	I never could figure that one out.
	Well, yeah, I mean, it's, I won't, I will not ask you any questions about a former employer in his position on the shooting.
	Oh, yeah, exactly, Alex Jones.
	It's been disgraceful.
	I tweeted about that.
	I got a lot of people angry at me because of what I said.
	I said, I can't believe I ever worked for this guy, but he completely flipped on the police state.
	I mean, he did documentary after documentary about the police state.
	Now he is all cheering it, you know, as well as Foreign Wars.
	I mean, he's just, you know, money talks, I guess, and we can kind of assume who's paying him, you know.
	Wow.
	It's truly amazing.
	Well, it might pay off his next libel lawsuit losing.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	Well, Jim, it's great talking to you as always.
	And again, the book is Last Rights.
	That's your most recent one.
	And people can get that anywhere books are sold, I'm sure.
	And they can find Your website, which will have, I guess, links to any of the articles that since you write for so many different outlets, they can go to jimbovar.com and find your op-ed pieces there and your articles.
	That's the best place for them to find you, right?
	Yeah, hey, thanks so much for having me on.
	Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for keeping up the fight.
	Well, thank you, and thank you for all the work and the research that you have turned up.
	Done some very valuable research with that.
	Thank you, Jim.
	Appreciate it.
	Have a good day.
	Well, that's it for today's broadcast.
	This is my grandson here, and we're going to all try to stay warm.
	He's got a special penguin suit here.
	I want to thank everybody who has supported us this month.
	We're at about 75%, but we're going to go by this afternoon, Friday, and check the P.O. box again.
	And we will update the gas gauge to let you know where we wound up.
	But hi, Karen.
	I see you.
	But thank you so much for joining us.
	Have a great weekend.
	And again, be careful with all the ice.
	Goodbye. The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons project to make sure the Commoners own nothing.
	And the Communist Future.
	They see the Common Man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at the DavidKnightshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

Chapters

00:01:00 Vaccines and Immune Dysregulation
00:12:06 Why Guns Matter
00:27:20 Proper Gun Security
00:36:58 Background Checks and 3D Printing
00:44:01 Firearm Storage Solutions
00:59:42 Secure It!
01:08:22 Systematic Organization Of Hatred
01:18:40 Marshals' False Storyline
01:29:22 Supreme Court Controversies
01:44:59 Threats and Lawsuits
01:50:39 Common Man vs. Police State