All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2021 - Rudy Giuliani
40:36
Even A Harvard Study DEBUNKS Democrat’s Gun Control Rhetoric | Rudy Giuliani | Ep. 128
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm bringing to you another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
This episode will be a real application of common sense and logical interpretation, because it is going to deal with a subject that has been surrounded by so much emotion and false argument and Inconsistent thinking and pandering and lying.
We'll have to deconstruct it, but at the end it's a pretty simple, it's a pretty simple, easy analysis.
What am I talking about?
I'm talking about the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself, which is of course something that has become a matter of even greater urgency in light of the activities of the last year or so with the Incredibly large number of riots last year.
Many more than really, I think, most people are aware of.
Riots in most of the major cities, some of them continuing for months and months and months and months, like Portland, Oregon, or the establishment of an independent city in, I believe it was in the city of Seattle, or was it in Portland?
I don't remember.
A little bit maybe of both.
And we continue now into this spring, and we've already had several controversial situations involving police interreaction with the community, in particular the black community.
And we've also had police officers in fairly significant numbers shot.
Maybe most significant of all, we've had an enormous increase in violent crime.
I don't know if you realize how much of an increase in violent crime.
This has been, you know, for a long period of time, this is my life, dealing with crime, reduction of crime, crime statistics.
And last year amazed me.
I've never seen a year, certainly in my lifetime, and I can't imagine in the history books, where in my city there was Almost a 50% increase in murder, homicide, and over 100% increase in shootings.
And that was a record for New York.
It still didn't put New York in the top tier of violent cities because New York had had such a good 20 years of massive crime reduction from the day I became mayor until the day Michael Bloomberg left.
They reduced crime somewhere around 75-80%, homicide about that amount.
Virtually wiped out auto theft, reduced that by 90%.
We took New York City from wherever it had been in the years of Death Wish and all those terrible movies about how violent New York City was, and we moved it from one of the most dangerous cities in America, the safest large city in the United States, and it held that title for 20 years?
Something like that.
Rushing toward decay.
Violence.
Things that you never thought you'd ever see again happening.
Police officers having water thrown on them.
Police officers being shot.
People being shot in very, very large numbers, and the only ones that the activists ever concentrate on are the very few that are shot by the police.
The others that are slaughtered every day are ignored.
You know, we have a weekend in Chicago of 40 people shot and 12 people murdered, and nobody knows their names or inquires as to why that happened, or what we can do to stop it.
So, this is a much bigger picture than what the left-wing, almost anarchistic movement concerning police tries to do to us, gun control being one of them.
So, maybe for 15 or 20 years, it's almost automatic when we have a tragedy, Mass shooting of some kind, whether it's in a school or it has some political aspect to it, left or right, or it has an insanity aspect to it, which is often the case.
A person is just dangerously criminally insane.
Sometimes even before someone says, you know, let me extend my condolences and prayers to the family.
In fact, that's being ridiculed now.
You know, to say that.
You see, Ted Cruz was quite upset about that, rightfully so.
Recently, I don't remember exactly the shooting, but I probably dealt with more shootings before I got a chance to turn the city around than most mayors ever have, right?
There was a time I was out of bed at least twice a week to go to the bedside of a police officer or other law enforcement officer who was shot in the line of duty.
Sometimes to be there when a visitor to New York was shot.
I'd often go to them to make certain that they had what they needed and their families were taken care of.
Because I knew the city would come back and I wanted people to have a good feeling about my great city.
So, I understand this.
I've seen it.
I've seen it before.
and I probably understand it and have had experience with it more than anyone.
So what is, what's, what are they trying to say to us when they say,
we have these shootings and they say, let's have gun control, let's control all the guns,
let's have everybody register, let's have everybody get a background check,
and then we will be safe and there'll be no crime.
Now, there's a surface appeal to that, but I tell you, this is where we have to exercise common sense, judgment, logic.
Socratic logic, maybe?
I want you to think.
Work a little.
Think.
Let me start, before I get into the history of all this, with just a simple proposition.
If you're using gun control to control the behavior of criminals, and you really believe that that's going to have much of a chance to work, then you're thinking illogically.
I'm not going to be insulting.
I'm not going to say stupid or ridiculous.
It has a surface appeal to it.
But you are thinking illogically.
Now, why is that?
Because criminals are criminals by the very nature of the fact that they don't follow the rules.
A holed-up man, right?
He violates the laws against sticking up stores and banks, right?
A rapist violates the laws against rape.
The murderer, we know what he violates the laws against, including the commandments.
A thief, a forger, the very nature of what they do is to violate the law.
So why would a law, a regulatory law, which can in some ways incriminate them or put them on a list somewhere, why would that at all affect their behavior?
When you consider another fact that's just a given that very often these people who analyze this in good faith or bad faith miss.
When there are over 300 million guns in our society, some say 350 million, more than one per person, so it's not as if the criminals are having a hard time finding the guns and therefore they've got to go to the government to get their guns.
In fact, there are a lot more guns available In other ways than through some kind of a legal channel.
So when we say, oh, we should have a system like Europe or someplace else, we have a different history.
We are legislating with a reality in mind if we are intelligent.
human beings who can care for the safety of other people.
We are legislating with the reality that we have 300 million to 350 million guns in this country,
many of which are completely uncontrolled and are never going to be taken under control because the
criminals are not going to take them and register them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be
criminals.
Chuck Schumer, can you get that through your head? Let me try it one more time.
Criminals are criminals because they don't follow rules.
Gun control is a rule that actually is harmful to them.
Therefore, they're not going to follow it.
Okay?
Got it?
So now, the next time one of these horrible incidents takes place, I don't know if it was you or somebody else, please don't make fun of someone who prays for them, and who says, we extend our condolences, because I do, and I do.
I extend my condolences and I pray for them.
And I think a lot of other people do.
But then, Chuck, unlike you and your colleagues, I've done a lot more to reduce crime in my career than any of you have ever done.
A lot more.
So maybe you should have some humility about this.
You don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about gun control.
Gun control has its purposes, but it's not to reduce crime.
We'll be right back.
I accomplished a lot in 2020 exposing the truth, establishing the relationship with you, working tirelessly for America.
And I came to know the work and value of the people at American Hartford Gold.
You see, you buy gold, not only for what you know, but you buy gold for what you don't know.
American Hartford Gold is the company you can trust when it comes to buying gold.
They sell physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside of your IRA.
In the precious metals industry, they are the highest rated firm in our country with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.
Give them a call and tell them Rudy sent you.
And be sure to ask them what I bought.
And if you call them right now, they will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first order.
Folks, these are uncertain times.
The one thing you can count on to protect what you have worked so hard for is physical gold and silver.
So, don't wait.
Call them now.
Call 833-GOLD-777.
That's 833-GOLD-777.
Or text Rudy to 65532.
Again, that's 833-GOLD-777.
Or text Rudy to 65532.
Welcome back.
777 or text Rudy to 65532.
Again, that's 833-GOLD-777 or text Rudy to 65532.
Welcome back.
So let's go to the history of gun control.
What is it?
This amendment that we fight about, the Second Amendment, what is it?
And what's the debate?
And how is it getting resolved?
And what direction is it going in for the future?
Because that's going to have a lot to do with what appears to be Joe Biden's attempt to take away your right under the Second Amendment.
So what is that right?
Because there's a debate about that also.
So I just put up on the television screen the text of the Second Amendment.
Very short.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, comma, critical comma by the way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So you can see quickly there are two interpretations of that, right?
Does the first phrase, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, limit, confine?
The second, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In other words, only for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia.
Is that what it was?
This is basically a regulatory provision Which would be rather unusual in ten amendments that were regarded as a conferring of human rights—actually, God-given rights—on people, individual rights.
This would be more of a regulatory right.
A way of aligning yourself and your conduct with what's necessary for the government to regulate its militia.
When this was seen, these amendments were seen as your protection against the state, or against the federal government actually, because only later on with the 14th amendment do they apply against the states.
So when this was written, this was written as a Provision to protect you against the new federal government they were establishing.
You know that, right?
I mean, that's the first amendment, the third amendment, the fourth, the fifth.
You don't have to incriminate yourself.
The federal government can't take your right to free speech away, although they're doing a pretty good job of it right now.
They can't interfere with your free exercise of religion?
Well, they just about eliminated it.
But they can't do this either.
This would be like some kind of a strange little, I mean, there would have to be an asterisk there saying, well, this is unlike those other rights.
This isn't really protection against the federal government.
This is actually a way to keep a militia together.
You know, I even would look at this and say, even if it is a way to keep a militia together, the way to keep it together is to make sure you have an armed citizenry that's capable of defending itself and can stand up an army in a minute's notice, which is why it was necessary for them to keep and bear arms and that it shouldn't be infringed.
When I say it should not be infringed, it means by the federal government.
So those are the two interpretations.
For many, many years, There wasn't much of a debate about this because it was just assumed that this was an individual right.
I mean, it had been that way in the colonies.
It had been that way at the beginning.
Many colonies, I'm reading now from a A review of this.
Many colonies enshrined in individual's rights bear arms in their constitution before the Bill of Rights was even written.
Most of them in more explicit individualistic terms.
Not a single framer objected to this.
This was not a matter of grave debate like some of the other things here.
Then, you know, contemporary analysis and maybe one of the most authoritative legal treatises of the day, Blackstone's Commentaries.
Blackstone's Commentaries in 1803 regarding the Second Amendment was written by a gentleman named George Tucker.
Seems pretty comfortable with it.
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature.
In most governments, it's been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest possible terms.
And when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under any color or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Gosh, he was pretty clear about that.
And somewhat shortly before his death, John Adams in 1823, who kind of knew something about the Constitution, was written to by William H. Sumner, a politician and general in the Massachusetts militia.
He noted that if the population of the United States, like that of Europe, consisted of an unarmed peasantry, it would be conquerable.
Here he went on, every house is a castle, and every man a soldier, arms in every hand, confidence in every mind, courage in every heart.
It depends upon its own will, not upon the force of the enemy.
Whether such a country shall ever be conquered.
Adams, one of our seminal framers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, our second president and one of our great minds, Adams concurred with his friend Sumner that an armed citizenry would not be susceptible to tyranny.
And then we have the great legal scholar, legendary legal scholar Joseph Story, who then became an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the early 1800s.
And he wrote, and again I quote, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers.
and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Look, you can lie, you can cheat, you can be intellectually dishonest.
Tell me that The brilliant Justice Scalia was wrong in the Heller case when finally, a century and a half later, he concluded, this is an individual right?
How much more do you need?
You might not like the fact that it's an individual right.
You might not like it.
You might prefer the fact that criminals have the guns and innocent people not.
Criminals in the government have guns.
Citizens don't.
But that isn't the way our Constitution was written.
Those are not the rights that were given to our people, and you, the modern left-wing, moving-towards-socialism Democrat party, aren't the grantor of our rights.
You're just a servant, just like we all are, of those rights.
So I think that the Supreme Court has quite clearly now defined this as an individual
right.
In two cases, Heller case, subsequent case, subsequent case deciding that the Second Amendment,
which originally was written as against the power of the state, through the Fourteenth
Amendment now, inhibits the power of state and local governments as well.
So they cannot interfere in your right to possess arms to defend yourself.
They can, however, impose reasonable Limited restrictions, as they can on every right.
That is quite correct, but note the words reasonable and limited.
If under the guise of a reasonable and limited regulation of your rights, they're taking your right away, as has happened with the rights in the First Amendment, Then that is unconstitutional, and hopefully the court will be vigilant to strike those actions of a Biden administration, which seem to be on the horizon, down.
Now the second question.
Now we get to the practical question.
That's the legal question.
Happy to argue it for you anytime.
I think that's one of those no-brainers in the Supreme Court, as they say.
Now let's get to the second argument.
Does gun control in any way reduce violent crime?
Now, I gave you the logical answer to that by saying that criminals don't follow rules.
Gun control are rules, so they're not going to follow gun control.
But maybe some of you who are persistently unrealistic because you're left-wing need more proof to that.
So maybe—I know that the elite and sometimes the Faux intellectuals like studies.
So I'm going to provide you with some studies.
Gee, one's even from Harvard.
I bet you don't believe it.
I bet you don't believe that the Harvard study debunks the left's rhetoric on the Second Amendment.
Bet you don't believe it.
They do.
Heritage expert Patrick Terrell points out that the numbers just don't add up.
Criminalizing the possession of firearms in America does not correlate to a reduction homicide.
In fact, according to a study by the Harvard Journal of War and Policy, the relationship goes the other way.
You're free to read it.
It's quite detailed, quite interesting.
I don't need it because, you know, I can read English and I can also make logical deductions, as I said before.
Criminals don't follow rules.
Gun control constitutes rules, therefore they don't follow gun control.
Remember that from Logic?
But if you need a study from Harvard, you know, because you're impressed with labels and brands, there's one.
Or you could go to the Cato Journal, which is quite an extensive study of gun control wars, going back to the 1970s.
And these are the ones that I knew about, because this is when I began as a prosecutor.
And I can tell you from my experience, I know lots of criminals who used to testify for me.
You know, we used to call them witnesses or informants or whatever.
They didn't even know what the gun control laws were.
I mean, like, if they took a rap for the gun control law, it would be like, oh, gee, that's nothing.
I'll take that one.
A number of studies in the 70s and the 80s, which is when I was doing my prosecuting, concludes, this is from the Cato Institute, page 107, the article is, Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?
A number of studies from the 1970s and 80s concludes that gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social conditions.
Maybe they have some impact on suicide rates.
However, in some of these states, we saw higher suicide rates by other means.
Laws governing the use of handguns in the various states have little effect on the rate of gun crime.
This is John Morehouse and Brent Wanner, Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?
The Cato Journal, Volume 26, Number 1, Winter 2006.
It's number one, winter 2006.
Just so you know that we are not just making this up.
out.
There are people that agree with us.
I know you don't think that those of us who are conservative are as intelligent or as well-educated as you are, but sometimes we're actually smarter than you are.
Lott and Mustard in 1997 did a study, and they focused on the state right to carry laws.
And what they concluded, my oh my, they concluded another common sense logical conclusion that if people were carrying guns and other people knew about it, it would reduce violent crime.
You know, I'll tell you another thing about criminals.
They don't follow laws and they don't like to be killed.
Well, except maybe for the insane ones.
But most of them, I mean, they don't follow laws, they don't follow gun control.
And if they think you have a gun, and you're going to use that gun, they don't mess around with you.
In fact, it says here, the authors, and I quoted you before, find that the right to carry laws reduce violent crimes, the reductions are greater in counties with proportionally higher urban populations, and the laws afford relatively greater protection to minorities and women.
When you consider that minorities Particularly in urban areas are overwhelmingly the victim of crimes.
70, 80%.
You can see why that's the case.
And just to the conclusion of all of these studies, because it was 10, possibly 20 years of study.
The empirical analysis presented here provides no support for the convention that gun control reduces crime rates.
Went through 10 different categories.
It went through the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
The finding of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that you will never be told about by Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Schumer.
Why do they do that?
Some of them actually, you know, believe it.
They become hard-headed ideologues.
They just will just keep reiterating their position.
But they got a deeper purpose for it, too.
The smarter ones have a deeper purpose for it.
The deeper purpose is they really don't want to deal with what has to be done to reduce crime.
Here's just another study.
I mean, I know, does gun control reduce violent crime?
From the Criminal Justice Law Review, Keck, Kovancic, and Bellows.
I'm looking for the date here.
It's pretty recent.
Oh, 2016.
I'll just read the conclusion.
Now, this one is so complicated.
Some of the terms they use here, I think I have an actual little bit of difficulty, you know, understanding because I'm a deplorable.
So maybe I would have to get one of those more intelligent lefties to tell me what some of this stuff means, like this vector analysis and stuff like that.
But then I go to the conclusions, and they're pretty simple.
And the table, I can read the tables.
When gun levels are treated as endogenous and instrumented with Vietnam and PCT, R.E.P.
92, gun levels show no significant positive effect on homicide.
Robbery or aggravated assault.
In other words, the more guns you have, we don't necessarily have more homicide, robbery, or aggravated assault.
This would be likely to fail, meaning more stringent gun control, because, again, the simple reason they say it in much more complicated terms than I do, criminals don't follow rules.
I mean, we spent a lot of money on this.
We really didn't have to.
The past performance of existing gun laws over the past 30 years does not justify much optimism that new gun laws will have any effect at all on violent crime.
It's time to take a short break.
Your credit card company found suspicious charges on your card.
That's simple identity theft.
It's annoying, but they cover it.
The type of fraud you really need to worry about is home title theft, a devastating crime that takes you off your home's title.
and you're not covered by insurance or most identity theft programs.
That's why you need home title lock.
Here's how easy it is for cyber criminals to get you.
The title documents to our homes are kept online.
The thief forges your signature on a quick claim deed stating you just sold your home and he's the new owner.
Then he borrows money using your home's equity and leaves you in debt.
You won't know until late payment or eviction notices arrive.
The instant Home Title Lock detects someone tampering with your home's title, they help shut it down.
Let's get you protected.
Go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim.
And enter Rudy for 30 free days of protection.
That's promo code Rudy at HomeTitleLock.com.
Thank you for returning.
So why do we, why do Democrats propose false solutions to the slaughter of human beings?
Because they don't want to, they never wanted to really embrace the real solutions, and now they're way off the charts, right?
So the real solutions, may I say something on my behalf?
I should have had somebody introduce me.
Unlike them, who've done very, very little ever to reduce a crime, I spent a good deal of my life reducing crime, and I was more successful than anyone ever has been.
So, I say that to explain to you there are things I don't know anything about.
This is something I know probably more than anyone about, and I certainly have had more success than anyone in reducing crime.
Just go look at the record.
You reduce murder by gun, Now, let's try this on for another simple principle, by taking guns away from the criminals.
Take them away.
See, they don't listen to laws, so they're not going to give them to you or register them.
Otherwise, they would have made a confession and stopped being a criminal.
So you've got to go get them.
You've got to develop strategies for how to find them, where they're sold.
You've got to get informants.
You've got to work into their networks.
You've got to seize guns.
You don't have to buy guns, ridiculous left-wing simpleton answer that makes crime worse.
You go get them.
They're against the law.
You penalize people for them.
You see, I'll give you somebody that should be penalized.
Gosh, I just thought of it.
Didn't I read that thing about Hunter Biden?
Making a false application for a gun for a .38 revolver, where he lied and said he wasn't a drug addict, even though he's been a drug addict for 30 years?
I would think the left wing would be up in arms about that.
Those are precisely the people they want to keep guns from, right?
They want to keep guns from Mentally incapacitated criminals and people who have serious drug problems.
She's got one right in their backyard.
He walks into the White House occasionally a lot.
Hunter Biden?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's all in his text.
I'll give you the text from the hard drive if you want to look at it.
I mean, he bought a .38 revolver, lied about being a drug addict, straight out lied about it.
No.
The answer is yes.
Penalties of perjury.
Ten years.
And then his girlfriend, who was also a co-addict, stole the gun and disposed of it, but she disposed of it in a trash can across from a high school.
So that stealing of it and walking down the street with it, she's in New York.
The left-wing people in New York go crazy if you even just technically make a mistake with the gun rules and you don't have a license.
You may have it in New Jersey, but not New York.
They're going to get you arrested.
They even want to put you in jail.
But she didn't get arrested.
She didn't go to jail.
He didn't get arrested.
He didn't go to jail.
There's a big rumor the Secret Service moved in and fixed it for them, even after the Secret Service was no longer protecting them.
It's part of the problem with these people.
You can't provide moral leadership when you're a phony.
You can't go ask other people to, you know, go through the background checks and tell the truth on the penalty of going to jail.
And then when your son blatantly, openly violates the law and goes on national television and just laughs and fools around and Then we see pictures of him all over a house with two young girls smoking massive amounts of crack.
You're knowing about it and doing nothing about it.
Tough for you to lecture us, Joe, on what to do about crime.
But let me tell you what you do.
What you do is you stop the ridiculous things your political party is doing now.
The reason for the tremendous outbreak of violence is the Black Lives Matter program that is now being carried out By your, what has now become a very dangerous political party, defunding the police, blaming the police for everything, doing what they just did in New York, taking away their immunity so that, you know, for anything, they can be sued for amounts of money that will ruin their lives and their families, or they can be put in jail for enormous periods of time if the woke mob
decides that they're wrong and the person they're dealing with, who may have an extensive criminal record or not, is right.
And these are just inherently ambiguous situations.
The reason we have this heavy crime is also because you like to let people out of prison.
That's a Democrat thing.
I mean, right in your platform, you want to do away with mass incarceration.
Well, I don't know about mass incarceration.
But the rapists that you put out on the street, the drug deals you put out on the street, the occasional murderer you put out on the street.
How about the guy that murdered his mother that just whacked around an Asian woman?
You know, he was an example of the white supremacist attack on Asians, except it turned out he wasn't white.
And he was a guy that Cuomo let out of jail, who killed his mother in front of his sister.
He let him out of jail?
You think gun control or guns has something to do with crime?
You want to murder out of jail?
You think the murderer is going to go, you know, when he goes gets his first gun, when he comes out of jail, I think he's going to go down to the, to the motor vehicle or motor vehicle or someplace and get an identification and register.
You know, that's not going to happen.
You just don't want to, you just don't want to crack.
You want, you want all those felons to vote because you figure they're going to vote Democrat because you're so good to them.
During the pandemic, your governor, Cuomo, and your mayor, de Blasio, caused our crime problem single-handedly by letting 7,000, 8,000 people out of jail.
Of course, you got a 50% increase in homicide.
Of course, you got a 100% increase in shootings.
You put the people who do it out on the street, and then you've made the police useless.
I mean, criminals read what you do.
When you, Joe, say that our police are systemically racist, yeah, you just told them I can do anything I want.
You're going to take my side.
You know, when I told you about how criminals are people who don't follow rules, do you ever think that criminals are also people who don't tell the truth?
So that although there are some terrible cases of policemen acting improperly and incorrectly and even making mistakes and being negligent, the overwhelming majority of times it isn't that.
It's the criminal taking advantage of that tactic to try to get out of the crime they don't want to be convicted of.
You know everyone indicted is innocent, right?
Everybody in jail is innocent.
I've been a prosecutor more and a defense lawyer and there are some innocent people, no doubt about it, but that certainly isn't the rule.
So when you hear about one of these things, don't just automatically jump to the assumption that police officer is wrong.
How about we give them the benefit of the doubt?
Well, that's all tied up in this, but the end result of this cannot be gun control.
Not at a time in which Not at a time in which you're going so far to take away our rights.
Not at a time in which you're kind of like almost working through our amendments systematically.
I mean, you've already torn up the First Amendment during the pandemic.
And with your censorship of the hard drive.
Censorship?
And we have a right of free speech?
Or with your not allowing churches to open and allowing strip clubs to open.
With your arresting people in church.
For praying to God, you've done a pretty good job under First Amendment Democrats, and now you want to take away guns.
Well, you didn't give us the right to have guns.
You can't take it away.
It's an individual right given to us by something you don't honor anymore, the Constitution of the United States.
And we're going to fight you.
And when I say fight you, I do not mean violently.
We're going to fight you in court.
We're going to fight you in the court of public opinion.
We're going to fight you based on justice, and what's right, and what's honest, and what's logical.
And we are going to stop your destroying our democracy.
And we're going to stop your inexorable march towards socialism, which is what you're doing.
I can see it.
I can see all the milestones you're reaching that Marx and Engels and Lenin set for you.
You've got those people in Black Lives Matter who are dedicated Marxists, who work very closely with you.
And they really are true Marxists because they want everybody to share everything except they're going to be multi-zillionaires, oligarchs, like all you guys are.
You know, Biden, Made multi-million selling office and Hillary and you guys are a bunch of oligarchs.
You have no integrity?
You got no respect for your office?
Now it doesn't even seem like you have respect for our Constitution.
I hope I'm wrong about that.
But I know our court does and I know our people do.
And I know we're going to stop you, and we're going to stop you in the right way.
We're going to stop you with our words, with the superiority of our thinking and philosophy, and eventually that's a ballot box.
So, I hope you found this instructive.
If you have any questions about it, please go to rudyscommonsense.com.
Just give me the questions.
I'd love to get feedback on this.
This is a very, very important topic and I tried to lay it out in comprehensive form because many people don't know the history of it and many people don't realize actually how clear it is that this is a personal constitutional right.
And all they have to do is go back a couple hundred years and read a little, and they find out.
Well, thank goodness it was given to us, because we probably need it now more than ever.
▲
Export Selection