Speaker 1: 0:13

Welcome to episode five.

Speaker 2: 0:16

Episode five. So who are you first off?

Speaker 1: 0:20

They know, at this point, Okay.

Speaker 2: 0:22

I think Sure Until it goes viral.

Speaker 1: 0:26

Yeah, I'm not real worried about that, although let's swear, it would have to be a good entertaining show for that to happen. Right, we did just hit a hundred downloads. I mean, that's, that's pretty sweet Something to celebrate. It is, it is. Thank you all for your support.

Speaker 2: 0:40

Yeah, for 100 downloads 100 downloads Pretty good accomplishment. I mean a couple weeks in, that's not terrible.

Speaker 1: 0:47

Not bad. It would help if it was promoted more, but you know it is what it is. So last episode we ended with a promise to come back and talk about the Supreme Court specifically. Yeah, the Supreme Court being bought and paid for. Yes, once again, this is your claim, so the floor is yours.

Speaker 2: 1:09

Did you see the comments I made on the episode three?

Speaker 1: 1:13

Yes.

Speaker 2: 1:14

Did you read them?

Speaker 1: 1:15

I did.

Speaker 2: 1:16

And it didn't change anything, did it?

Speaker 1: 1:19

Once again, this is your claim. The floor is yours, I'm just saying Well, why don't you share with the audience?

Speaker 2: 1:25

Well, so here's what it amounts to. I said you had to bring specifics. I brought specifics Well let's hear them. Okay. So ultimately, what it amounts to is the Supreme Court Justice, clarence Thomas yes, thank you Is probably the worst as far as I mean. He is the worst as far as taking country campaign campaign contributions no, what's the word? It's not gifts, gifts from, from people who are potential Defendants, or Well, everybody is a potential defendant, ok, okay then they shouldn't take money from anybody.

Speaker 1: 2:04

We could make that, yeah, make that case, yeah sure I mean what?

Speaker 2: 2:09

yeah, I, I don't know, I I just I don't see the like. If you're going to be in a lifelong position which I think that's ignorance in itself um, I think you should have a set of rules and criteria that you need to stand by. You need to have ethics and some boundaries, and if you don't abide by those, you can go away, and unfortunately, that's not how the Supreme Court works currently.

Speaker 1: 2:37

So I'm just going to get a general, just like last episode. A general this is. This is what I.

Speaker 2: 2:43

Harlan Crowe is the the the now good friend of of Clarence Thomas, and Harlan Crowe is a multi-billionaire, largest real estate owner in the country and he has been dozens of times has let Clarence Thomas and his family come stay on his yacht. They'll take his private jet, they will go all over the country, all over the world, and they do these things, and there are four cases out there that Harlan Crowe directly benefits from. Some of them are as simple as he's a multi-billionaire and the way they classify somebody as far as taxes go would change his, you know whatever. But that to me is not as big of a deal, because that could be any rich guy landlords, owners. When it comes to a Supreme Court issue, if best friend takes trips and does all this lavish stuff, he needs to recuse himself if there is a direct benefit to one of his buddies. That's my thought.

Speaker 1: 3:51

But okay, that's your thought, but is it your claim that that's what happened, 100% Okay? Do you have an example?

Speaker 2: 3:58

Yeah, I mean, they're all like that's what those news articles are. Okay, and the thing is, he's not denying them.

Speaker 1: 4:07

So let me put it this way You're a judge, you're a judge on the Supreme Court, right, and you and I have been friends for 15 years. Let's say I think is accurate, yep, and I suddenly become a billionaire. Please God.

Speaker 2: 4:24

Right.

Speaker 1: 4:25

Let this be the problem. I suddenly become a billionaire and I buy myself a yacht and I decide I'm going to take that yacht from Florida to Bermuda one day. And I say to you hey, adam, I'm going to take my yacht from Florida to Bermuda. It would be awesome if you and Amelia could join me Right and go, and we'd have a little vacation. And you say, yes, okay, that's a problem.

Speaker 2: 4:55

It's a problem if there is a case that you're presiding over that potentially changes for the better of me. You know what I'm saying.

Speaker 1: 5:04

Now, one thing I couldn't find is when these cases were in effect, compared to when this alleged and I think it was one when this alleged vacation not alleged vacation the vacation happened, sure, but when this alleged ethics violation happened. I could only find one example.

Speaker 2: 5:25

Well, there's, and there's a graph on there that shows the amount of money that that he was given. But here's the issue for me.

Speaker 1: 5:31

The cases that you're talking about, as you stated, were very general in. In, as you stated, we're very general in. You know they're very broad reaching Meaning. He's supposed to recuse himself because his best friend is in real estate and these cases loosely, very generally, have something to do with real estate.

Speaker 2: 5:53

Okay, I mean, should we have a ethics policy that outlines exactly what that criteria is? Well, I mean sure we can't do that, though why? Because the Supreme Court doesn't have oversight. How do you oversight a Supreme Court, don't they have internal oversight? I don't even know. I think it's. Roberts is the lead right now. He's the chief justice.

Speaker 1: 6:19

It's up to him. I think Thomas's defense was. I went to my colleagues I said here's what I'm doing. Is that an issue? And they said no, I mean that should be the end of it, right? Yeah, I mean, but because Clarence Thomas is a conservative justice and because he's an influential conservative justice, the left is going to attack him in any way they can find this ethics violation is the way that they do it, which that's fine. They're going to do what they do and that's what they do. But what I won't do is I won't take ethics lessons from the left, because they have zero ethical ground to stand on Zero, in fact, less than zero.

Speaker 2: 7:00

I didn't know that was a thing.

Speaker 1: 7:03

Well, you do. You just don't want to acknowledge it. I mean when you sexually assault your intern in the Oval Office.

Speaker 2: 7:12

I would call that an ethics violation.

Speaker 1: 7:14

That didn't happen. That's not an ethical quandary. Not an ethical quandary, I mean, for you, Were they of age. The left was like, okay, if your daughter's 19 or 20 and some 65-year-old pedophile pervert does that to her, you're just going to go. I mean they're of age.

Speaker 2: 7:33

Is it an ethical issue? Is it a moral issue? What is it? I think it's all of that.

Speaker 1: 7:36

I mean, does that really where you want to go, though?

Speaker 2: 7:38

But what if you cheat on your three wives and you have?

Speaker 1: 7:41

yeah. I mean is that a bridge too far? I absolutely think that's a problem. But I'm not the one the right's not the one taking people into the Senate and having an ethics, you know. Meeting about taking a vacation with their best friend, okay, that's the difference, you know. I understand there's ethical problems, you know, especially in that case. I understand that. I acknowledge that. What I don't do is I don't say well, we are the least ethical party on the planet, but we're going to bring people up on ethics violations, that's all Okay.

Speaker 2: 8:19

We had a Facebook comment requesting that we discuss the Second Amendment, similar to how we discussed the Fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 1: 8:30

I think the way we should introduce this though is, we got a review.

Speaker 2: 8:35

Oh, I did not know that. Well, yeah, the same comment. Oh, okay, oh, it was, but it was a review. It's got a review.

Speaker 1: 8:38

Oh, I did not know that. Well, yeah, the same. Just a comment oh, okay, oh it was, but it was a review.

Speaker 2: 8:41

Oh okay, it's our first review. Well, that's fun. Yeah, was it?

Speaker 1: 8:43

Mr Eric Pettigo. See, you thought I was going to do something you didn't like.

Speaker 2: 8:51

No, no, no. And I'm saying let's introduce. Was there was something coming? You thought I was gonna come at you.

Speaker 1: 8:56

I mean I'm ready. Somehow I was gonna twist this into some attack on you. No, we got a review. Okay, from eric p. Okay, in springfield, illinois, that'd be eric yeah I don't know if you're supposed to, it is we are, it's okay okay, you did it. He's not from springfield either.

Speaker 2: 9:17

He's gonna get doxxed now I think he, I imagine he stayed pretty center on the the well.

Speaker 1: 9:25

I don't mean he's gonna get politically doxxed, he's just gonna get generally okay, yeah, gotcha. Um, you probably just committed an ethics violation, that's fine. But since we don't have anything in writing, there's nothing in writing. You can't do anything. It's internally enforced.

Speaker 2: 9:38

How about I ask my friends if it's okay? Hey, friends, is it okay? Yeah, it's fine. Okay, we're good One of them said no.

Speaker 1: 9:44

Oh, okay, so now we have to take it for the Senate, all right. Okay, eric P from Springfield, illinois, you guys are doing great. I I have a couple of thoughts on this episode. I'm going to skip the first one because we've already fought about that and I don't want to get back into it, because that's what politics does to me it does, it does the fight out of me, it does. Yeah Right, all right, comparing the. So in the last episode we compared the 14th amendment to the second amendment.

Speaker 2: 10:12

Yeah, I made a.

Speaker 1: 10:15

I made a loose generalization on that. So he said comparing the 14th Amendment to the Second Amendment is really interesting. You touched on the second but really dissected the intent of the 14th. I'd be interested to hear you dissect the intent of the Second Amendment in the same way. All right, let's do it. I mean it's going to get hot. I don't think so, because I think you and I generally agree on the Second Amendment, maybe not on some of the some of the specifics, but how do you feel about common sense gun reform?

Speaker 1: 10:45

let's not treat 12s a little bit hot it is a little warm.

Speaker 2: 10:48

What do you think of a common sense gun regulation?

Speaker 1: 10:51

well, I think the left and the right define common sense very differently. They do, yeah, and so, as I've told you before, I know that's why I said it I think you throw out common sense as a way to stop argument, as a way to put up a barrier, like, oh, you can't even argue this because it's common sense, right, when it really isn't common sense. If you put that caveat on it, then nobody can question it.

Speaker 2: 11:20

So the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, right? Pretty simple language in my mind. Yeah, how deep does that go, though, are you, are you?

Speaker 1: 11:31

allowed to. Well, let's define infringe. Okay, what does that mean?

Speaker 2: 11:35

Okay.

Speaker 1: 11:37

Do you want me to do it? Go for it. I looked it up, okay, of course you did, so it's, I looked it up and of course I forgot it. But it, it, it literally. It literally means you can't, you can't do anything to inhibit, okay.

Speaker 2: 11:52

Yeah, so let's discuss arms.

Speaker 1: 11:55

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 11:55

What do you think arms are weapons?

Speaker 1: 11:59

I think I, I don't know they they may have meant guns, right, you know, they may have meant specifically guns, right?

Speaker 2: 12:06

I mean, my assumption is it would be guns, because I don't know that, what there was beyond guns then well, the thing is, back then they had cannons.

Speaker 1: 12:13

They had, okay, they had gatling guns which were automatic, you know so, well, no automatic, um, and you could own those. You could own cannons, okay, you know so. I mean, they had Gatling guns which were automatic. Well, no automatic, and you could own those. You could own cannons, okay. So I mean, whatever the top-tier military weapon of the day was, you could own them. Back then, okay.

Speaker 2: 12:30

Should I be able to own an F-16?

Speaker 1: 12:32

You can own an F-16.

Speaker 2: 12:35

That's fully ammo-ready.

Speaker 1: 12:35

You cannot own an armed F-16. Why that's?

Speaker 2: 12:42

the law that's, but what does?

Speaker 1: 12:42

that does that saying. But does that? I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying I agree with it.

Speaker 2: 12:46

I'm saying it is the law okay, but does that infringe on your second amendment?

Speaker 1: 12:50

right, it has to be decommissioned, as they say okay, does that?

Speaker 2: 12:53

does that infringe on your second amendment right?

Speaker 1: 12:55

I don't know. I mean, I would say that I'd have to know what was meant by bare arms.

Speaker 2: 13:04

Yeah, Well, and so here's my issue, and this goes back straight to the 14th Amendment. The amendments were never meant to be written in concrete, etched in steel. That was never their point. They're living documents. Times will change, things will change. We should change with it.

Speaker 2: 13:22

I know it sounds crazy. Second Amendment needs adjusted. Things have changed since it was written. You, you have all kinds of crazy weapons out there now and there isn't. You know, now you have people that are interpreting what that meant when there is no way to interpret what it meant when there wasn't this thing even invented yet.

Speaker 2: 13:46

You know, you know what I'm saying. So, like in my mind, this is all the more reason that the amendment should get updated. I'm going to say regularly, but fairly regularly. They should change. They should, you know, I mean, like that's what the intent that can happen do that this gets way deeper, and the reason it gets way deeper is because you dip into campaign finance laws, you dip into lobbying laws, you dip into all kinds of other stuff, which is why it's not going to get changed. Because if, if a Republican today came out and said, hey, I think we need to redo this second amendment, they would get literally hung. I mean they? They would be hung out to dry, because you can't. That is one of the items you cannot touch. You know what I'm saying and that's not what it's meant to be.

Speaker 1: 14:32

I think bearing arms means that you are holding a weapon. You can't hold an F-16. You can't hold a tank.

Speaker 2: 14:42

Can I hold a rocket launcher? You can. And RPG tank. Can I hold a rocket launcher?

Speaker 1: 14:47

You can and.

Speaker 2: 14:48

RPGs are very illegal. Yep, I think it needs updated. I don't know that we may have to rise up against the government someday. I get that argument, I really do. You're not going to win Under any circumstances. Are you going to beat a drone? But I get it Like I, and I understand that the you know the the good things with us bearing arms in this country is so long it has kept any other countries from invading us.

Speaker 2: 15:16

You're not going to invade a country where everybody's got weapons yeah, you're. You're not going to win Like. You're going to get beat down where, if you go to a country that is weaponless, you just run right over everybody and it's no big deal, yeah. So I like I understand the intent and I and I'm not would never say, oh, my God, we got to get rid of all the guns. That said, I also think if you're going to own an AR 15, if you're going to own a sniper rifle, if you're going to own a fully automatic weapon, you should probably go through some checks. I'd like to know that you're at least of sound mind and body. And we can't do that right now. You can't background check a gun show.

Speaker 1: 15:56

In some states they won't allow it, that's never that's not a thing, that's something that the left loves to throw out as a talking point, but that's not a thing.

Speaker 2: 16:04

It is a thing you do not have to have a background check in some states to go buy a gun. It is what states the southern states. I'm telling you right now you do not have to have a full background check like you do in Illinois, and I'm not saying you have to take it to the level of a FOID card.

Speaker 1: 16:23

I went to a gun show in Texas last year. Okay, not only did you have to have a background check, but you couldn't take the gun home for three days.

Speaker 2: 16:30

So they've got a three-day rule Fine, great. I love that. A cool-off period Not all states have a cool-off period and I'm not like that, man.

Speaker 1: 16:40

I hope that I remember that right. I'm going to get skewered.

Speaker 2: 16:44

Yeah, when, when I say common sense, gun reform, that's what I'm talking about. You're talking about what is common sense? I'm common sense to me, absolutely. People need to cool off period. You don't need to go buy an AR and walk out with it. You need to wait a few days. If you've got something that's really you know you're up in arms about, let's, let's take a little minute to cool off. Are you researching right now?

Speaker 1: 17:07

I sure am. I'm the jamie of this show. The what?

Speaker 2: 17:11

I'm the jamie of this show. I don't know what that means. Am I just waiting for you then? Is that what we're doing?

Speaker 2: 17:16

no, go ahead I was listening oh okay, no, I I mean that. That's there. There's a few parts on the second amendment that I think we would agree on, and I think one of them is I think we need to be able to make laws that protect the citizens, which is what I think we want. We want laws that protect the citizens and we need to enforce those laws. And when you have some gang members with a carload of guns and they get pulled over and they take them away and they put them in jail for two days and then they get right back out and they're back doing it again, you didn't teach them anything and for me, I'll probably get skewered for this.

Speaker 2: 18:00

When Amelia and I and Hazel were in Honduras, we spoke to a resident there I'd say citizen, but I assume they're citizens, I don't know and we'd ask them if we were safe in Honduras as tourists. He was like oh yeah, you're totally safe here. And I was like really, I assumed that it was bad. He's like no, our jails here are terrible. You'll starve to death and you will die of thirst if your family don't bring you food. If your family doesn't bring you food, they don't provide food. They don't provide anything other than four cinder block walls. It's terrifying to go to jail, so we don't commit crimes.

Speaker 1: 18:37

As it should be 100% yeah. And the reason it's not is because of the left.

Speaker 2: 18:43

Okay, so I don't necessarily agree with that. Well, no, it's absolutely true. No, it's definitely not true, because it goes both ways. You have a whole lot of white-collar crimes out there, where people think that they need to have air conditioning and 10 TV channels and access to magazines and books and everything else.

Speaker 1: 19:05

It's all originated on the left.

Speaker 2: 19:06

Okay, regardless, that's not true, but that's fine, I mean it is the prison systems that we have today is, in my mind, entirely too lavish for the inmates.

Speaker 1: 19:18

That are in there. What did you think about getting off the subject a little bit? But what did you think about Sheriff Arpaio's Tent City?

Speaker 2: 19:26

That was just I get it, I understand it. Putting men in pink outfits, you're just being stupid. It was just the underwear that was pink. No, I saw the full giddy-ups were pink. That's just ignorant. You're just poking the bear. At that point, the Tent City idea putting them out where it's miserable.

Speaker 1: 19:47

Talking about the tent city Cheat Effective, yeah, no, no fence required, yep, cause you're 200 miles from anywhere in the middle of the desert. Yep, go leave if you want. Yep, you're not going to survive, yep.

Speaker 2: 20:02

I'm not completely against it. Yeah, like I said, there were some things about it where he was just being petty, but the concept is there and you know, when I worked with the union I would go into the prisons. I was, I do the prison South of I-80 in Illinois, so I was in pretty much all of them and you know I was one of the ones that represented the barbers and you know I was one of the ones that represented the barbers. So inside federal prisons or, I'm sorry, inside state prisons, it is a federal law that all inmates can have a haircut every four weeks. That is by law. So what that means is inside of a prison you have to have a licensed barber and they teach eight inmates how to cut other inmates hair, which again, I'm okay with that If they're not doing a life sentence and they're going to learn a trade that helps them once they get out and they can become a productive member of society, I'm all for it. Like that part I was cool with.

Speaker 2: 21:00

But what was crazy is you would have a, a blood cutting, a Crips hair inside the barbershop and when you walked into that barbershop as an as an inmate, you're on. You're on neutral ground. It doesn't matter what set you claim and like none of that matters. What matters is that you're in a place that sounds like you're outside. There's a TV playing in the corner, there's magazines. You hear the buzzers clip magazines. You hear the buzzers clipping, you hear people laughing and if you sit there and close your eyes for a minute, you're not in prison. And they loved that which I get like you know it was a little piece of home for them.

Speaker 2: 21:36

But as I was in there and I would get to talk to some of these inmates and you know the barbers they were, I remember there was one particular time they were really upset and I you know the, the barbers they were. I remember there was one particular time they were really upset and I can't remember who the governor was, I think it was Rauner had cut their clear view TV stations from like 12 down to two or three and they were fear Like they were. They were like there was a at one point in time down in I want to say big money. They tried. They tried like say big money, they tried. They tried like overthrowing, like they tried coming together and having a riot over these TVs. Now, the TVs they're, they're completely clear.

Speaker 2: 22:13

And you have to earn them through the commissary or in. To earn them you have to do a job, you have to work, you have to, you know, and you get a buck a week or something and you know the TV might be 50 bucks and you can buy it. But a buck a week or something and you know the TV might be 50 bucks and you can buy it. But then when you leave you can hand it to your buddy and it can stay there and then they just perpetually stick, you know, stick around. So, um, these inmates they would get I'm not going to say they were treated easy because they still were in prison, but they got to work out every day, they could go get college degrees if they wanted, they could sit outside.

Speaker 2: 22:45

I mean, they just had so much freedom. It was. It was kind of crazy to me. The only prison I didn't I felt really weird in is there's one in Rushville, and the Rushville prison is actually a kind of a rehabilitation prison. It's still a full prison. The people there have completed their sentence, all sexual predators. All of them completed their sentence, but the judge said they're not safe to put out on the streets. So every one of the inmates is in street clothes and it's yes, sir, yes, ma'am, to them, which is completely opposite, crazy, anyway. Um, being inside those prisons personally, which let me just tell you, when you go into a woman's prison as a dude, yeah you're a piece of meat.

Speaker 2: 23:27

I I have never been so flattered in my life. If I was having a bad day, I'd walk through that prison. And I tell you what, when I walk out of there, my head barely fit through the door. I mean, I'm just like dude, I am a hot piece of meat, and I bet they were too. You know, there was a couple there, really was. There's a couple in there that I'm like gosh dang. They're like gorgeous and yeah. But anyway, complete sidetrack. I think the gun issue is a much larger issue than just hey, let's go change the guns.

Speaker 1: 23:54

So let's go back. Sorry, eric P, we will get to your question. So the question was can you dissect the intent of the Second Amendment?

Speaker 1: 24:03

And you did that Right, you did that kind of in passing, and I think we agree on the intent. I think the intent is threefold. One is personal protection of persons and property, which a lot of times right. A lot of times we're told that you know your property isn't worth someone dying over and I don't know how you feel about that. But if it's my property and you're trying to take it from me, I believe I have the right to kill you. You made that choice, not me, right? You made the choice to try to take my stuff.

Speaker 2: 24:38

I don't know if there's too many people out there that they get upset. When you hear about the woman, I want to say Oklahoma. I don't know if her husband had passed away or if he was in the military and he was overseas, but there were men trying to get in her door two of them and she shot a shotgun through the door and killed one of them. The other one got away. The one that got away got charged with first degree murder and the reason he got charged with murder is the murder rules say if, if, while committing the crime, somebody dies and it was a willful death, you can be charged with murder. Oh, I love that. I love.

Speaker 2: 25:15

I was just in that like this woman in my mind, like I feel terrible that she had to do that. Obviously Right, but it threw a lot of the rules out that I had always assumed. You know, somebody is outside of her door and she shot them from outside and killed them Like they weren't inside yet. Were they a threat yet? Like you know what I mean Like a lot of that comes into play. You still got to sit in front of a jury of 12. Right, and it only takes one to be like girl, I would have done what you did. Yeah, you get the Colorado guy that sat in the airport on the payphone until his daughter's killer came through. Oh son.

Speaker 1: 25:48

Oh, I thought it was a daughter. It was somebody who sexually assaulted his son. Yeah, so his son was still alive. Shot the guy in the face, shot him right in the head as he walked by.

Speaker 2: 25:56

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 25:57

And he was acquitted and then just dropped the gun and put his hands up, was fully acquitted.

Speaker 2: 26:00

Yeah, as he should, you know. Yeah, yeah, so I, I, you know all of that, I, I think, I think they're man, it's.

Speaker 1: 26:09

It's just such a deep issue, you know, but but anyway, so back to dissecting yeah, well, it brings to mind too the guy in texas a couple years ago that found, uh, found somebody, I don't know what molesting his daughter and he beat him with his hands till he died. Yeah, yeah, good for him.

Speaker 2: 26:25

I mean he went to jail that night, but he got, he went home yeah.

Speaker 1: 26:28

He went to jail with the police shaking his hand.

Speaker 2: 26:31

Yes.

Speaker 1: 26:31

Yeah, um. So the intent? Protection of of personal and property. The second is tyranny and protection against your government, which there's some validity to that there's. You know, we've come to a point technologically where we're not going to be able to protect ourselves from the government. If the government truly wants to enforce its will on the citizenry, however, the government's not going to want that egg on its face. So if it ever had, if there was ever a true unified uprising, I don't think the government is going to, uh, you know, unleash hell on its citizens. Who do you?

Speaker 2: 27:18

think that would be because I hear a lot of people say that you know, this is so I can protect myself from the government. That's the army. Army, that's the Marine, that's the, that's the state police. You know what I mean.

Speaker 1: 27:29

Like that. You say that, but if it ever came to that situation, I think you're going to get a lot of the army, a lot of the police, you know, a lot of the military that are on the side of the citizenry. Okay, I don't think they're going to really attack the citizenry, but I don't know if you ever saw the movie V. Did you ever see it? Oh, that's right, you don't watch movies, I don't. Yeah. So V, very good movie, but it's about an uprising, it's about a revolution that happened. And as they're approaching the capital, the citizenry, full military there. The citizenry, full military there, probably just police at the time for the movie. But you know, being told to fire on them, they just stood there, they just let everybody through. I think you'd see a lot of that. I don't think there's a lot of military who aren't going to be with the people at that point.

Speaker 1: 28:18

I mean they have families too.

Speaker 2: 28:20

Yeah, 100%, and their families are going to be part of the unified body that stands up and that's where, like, when people say like, oh, I got to be able to fight the government. Isn't Donald Trump coming to your door? This isn't you know what I mean. This isn't Senate and Congress coming to your house, this is the soldiers. That is, who enforced the policing.

Speaker 1: 28:40

I find it so odd that you would immediately go to Donald Trump on that issue.

Speaker 2: 28:43

I mean, I could have said Kamala, but she wouldn't have found your house or Biden would be just stumbling around. Biden would be in your bushes yelling at you, yeah.

Speaker 1: 28:52

Yelling at the cat, yeah, if he even made it that far. But so tyranny, that's, that's the other defense that you have against tyranny, I mean hell. It could be the IRS OK.

Speaker 2: 29:07

And then have against tyranny. I mean, hell, it could be the irs, okay, um, and then the other, that's a whole nother subject that we could dip into man, because I I did get hilarious seeing these people like, like trump's, trump's gonna fire the 88 000 irs agents, he's gonna get rid of the irs. And I'm like good luck with that, because if you make, oh, there you go. The is.

Speaker 1: 29:21

I know it's not going to happen, Right, but the idea was floated at one point and we honestly do not need the IRS in this country. We don't need it.

Speaker 2: 29:31

Well, I mean, I'm not going to pay my taxes if I don't have somebody that's going to be yes, you would, because we would you want that?

Speaker 1: 29:36

Yes, you would, because we would go to a flat tax.

Speaker 2: 29:39

Then taxes were collected through sales tax Done, it ain't going to happen.

Speaker 1: 29:45

I know that, yeah, but it would think about it. You would never have to file taxes again. Right, let's save this for another.

Speaker 1: 29:52

Yeah, oh, dude, I mean that's a whole nother, like I could go on to that, but anyway. And then the third reason is protection against invasion from a foreign adversary, which is really effective. Yes, I, adversary, which is really effective. I mean it's already been proven effective. I mean, when the Japanese attacked Hawaii, they asked, somebody asked I don't know who it was, but somebody asked why didn't you go further, why didn't you go to California? And the answer was because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. And that's absolutely true. No doubt Nobody's getting in this country without every single person that has a gun putting up a fight. Yes, and that's a huge deterrent, 100%. So that's the intent of the Second Amendment.

Speaker 1: 30:34

Okay, now, if a foreign adversary comes in, I do want a rocket launcher. Yeah, I do want an RPG. I do want grenades. Yeah, I do want a sniper rifle. Yeah, I do want an rpg. I do want grenades. Yeah, I do want a sniper rifle. Yeah, I do want an automatic weapon. I'll teach you how to make them all.

Speaker 1: 30:51

And and I the issue that we have when it comes to putting any barriers on the second amendment and the second amendment and there's a little bit of internal struggle for me here, because I agree with you. I don't want I agree with you in some case. I don't want lex luthor, whoever that may be, in you know realistic terms buying a fully loaded f-16 and being let loose with it, right, I don't want that Now. He wouldn't survive long. Anybody who would buy something like that and then have evil intent. It's not going to be long before they're dead. But they might take some people out along the way and I don't want that. But the only people who listen to the laws when it comes to gun control are law-abiding people.

Speaker 2: 31:49

Because the jails suck.

Speaker 1: 31:52

And you may very well be right, but if I can't protect myself against automatic weapons, then there's something wrong. If criminals have automatic weapons and I'm not allowed to have one, I'm at a huge disadvantage.

Speaker 2: 32:09

So, but back to my original. If you get caught with an automatic weapon and you're a criminal and you don't, you didn't go through the proper. Whatever it takes, whatever we agree to.

Speaker 1: 32:20

There was no problem.

Speaker 2: 32:21

Well, okay, If there was, you know there's, there's proper avenues to learn how to you know, you have to show your competence, you have to do a background check. You got to maybe even take a little mental health test.

Speaker 2: 32:31

I mean, that's scary to think, but I know at that point but and you got to have somebody that oversees it all and says you know what? Yes, you're good, no, you're not getting three squares a day, you're not working out, you're stuck in a jail cell and it's going to be miserable. That guy's going to think long and hard before picking up that gun, but right now half his friends are in the prison and they're all going to hang out and he's going to have street cred when he gets in there. And they've got drugs and they've got a hierarchy and they've got everything. So why wouldn't you? It's not in my mind it. It is a gun issue, it is a mental health issue, like it is all of those, but it's also a judicial system issue, like that's why it's so ingrained in my mind.

Speaker 1: 33:15

Yeah, yeah, yeah and then. But then you have people that come out and they say, well, we're going to put a limit on the number of bullets you can have and the number of bullets you can have in a, in a magazine at one time, and you know who are you to claim the right to tell me how many rounds I can have to protect myself. You know if, if it's just me and you and we're in a, in a showdown, right, we're doing an old fashioned walk 10 paces and turn around paces and turn, have a duel.

Speaker 1: 33:44

You know six rounds might be enough, okay, but if I'm with my family and 10 people attack us, six rounds isn't enough, you know. And if I have, I happen to, you know, have be carrying a weapon that holds 17, and then I've got two more magazines backing that up. I would much rather have that than have a six shooter when I've got three or four people attacking my family. And why is it okay for you to tell me I can't do that?

Speaker 2: 34:17

Because you haven't went through a mental health check.

Speaker 1: 34:19

Well, I have, and I'm completely fine obviously.

Speaker 2: 34:23

Right. I mean, I think with the current laws the problem you have is that same scenario the guy that wants a 50-round clip or a 100-round drum, he's also the same guy that might walk into the elementary school tomorrow.

Speaker 1: 34:34

Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 34:35

And now he's got unlimited.

Speaker 1: 34:37

Absolutely. But the issue is you're telling me I can't, but that guy's doing it anyway, right.

Speaker 2: 34:43

Well, because they're available, he can buy the drum because it's not illegal. If that drum was never here because it was, because it was illegal all along, then and that's the other thing. Well, at this point, if you know again, you get caught with a 50 round drum, you're going to prison. Period. There is no, you go to court. All you want, you're not, you're going to prison. You were found with it. That's in and out. Now you just have a second thought about even buying one. You know what I'm saying. But we don't have that. The cat's already out of the bag.

Speaker 1: 35:13

But that 50-round drum shouldn't be banned, in my opinion, for 300 million people, because there's one crazy guy that might buy one, I think your mind would change.

Speaker 2: 35:30

I mean, my mind has changed only because you know military background in me. I, I, I always think the worst well, you know what I'm saying.

Speaker 1: 35:33

Like I don't want a crazy person to have a 50 round drum, right? My point is how do we stop it? And we don't stop it by saying, okay, you can no longer sell 50 round drums they're out there, right that the cat's out of the bag, that's yeah, yep, that's a sale.

Speaker 1: 35:48

So. So for me it's how do we stop that stuff from happening now, in reality, with what we have? How do we stop that from happening? And I don't think the way you do that is by making it more difficult for law abiding people to protect themselves and their families for law abiding people to protect themselves and their families.

Speaker 2: 36:09

I'm tough man. It is a tough one Because you know when, when, when I carried in the army training, not, not active combat we didn't have 50 round drums, we didn't need them. We had clips 17 rounds of clip and you know, you had multiple all over you and that was fine because you you could get to the point where you could click, unload, pop and keep going and you barely missed a beat.

Speaker 1: 36:34

You didn't have 50 round drums but you had somebody with a belt fed machine gun going everywhere.

Speaker 2: 36:38

That was in that. Well, that was quite honestly.

Speaker 1: 36:40

That was me for a little while too, Right so you had somebody that had hundreds or thousands of rounds backing you up, right?

Speaker 2: 36:49

yeah, yep, I just, I don't know, man, I I'm, I'm really torn on that one. I would rather, you know, there be a number. I don't know what that number is. It's not six, it's not ten, it is a number that says, beyond this, you know, the average citizen doesn't need it beyond this.

Speaker 2: 37:07

You just have to die or or the people that are going to use it are going to be using it against, instance, in innocent civilians, in, you know, festival shootings, you know whatever, school shootings, church, all that crap like. In order to to get rid of it, you've got to wipe them out and I'm like so a 50 round drum, I am fine if, if, if they say you know what, no more selling those. If you get caught with them, you're, you're going, you know whatever, the, the, the crime is, you know, I don't know, dispose of them. I mean the, the government buyback programs, I think that we haven't done.

Speaker 1: 37:41

Most people who commit those crimes they're ready to die anyway, like that's, that's part of their plan is they're gonna?

Speaker 1: 37:46

die. So you get rid of a 50 round drum and then some guy 3d prints one and he goes out and he kills a bunch of people and you weren't able to protect yourself because you fired off 17 rounds. It didn't kill him, yep, and you got shot and your family got shot and 12 other people got shot before he was finally put down. Yep, I'm noted. How do you feel about this? I was thinking about this on the way over. You go into a movie theater and that movie theater says you know, has a little sticker where you I have never not once walked into the movie theater strapped okay.

Speaker 1: 38:22

So you go into the theater and you're not strapped, and then somebody comes in no, I have never not been strapped right, okay, but you go into the theater and you're not strapped. And then somebody comes in. No, I have never not been strapped. Right, okay, but you go into the theater and the theater says you can't have a gun and you bring one in anyway. Somebody starts shooting and you kill them.

Speaker 2: 38:37

Yep, I'm going to jail, okay, but I'm alive.

Speaker 1: 38:40

But you're alive. And I would be rather I would be judged by 12, then carried by six, absolutely. But how do you? But you know that's going to happen and you know you're probably going to be found guilty, but I mean, it only takes one you know again it does only take one. So your your best hope is that there will be a republican on the jury well, and now they would bring up this podcast and be like dude that will quit you this will be.

Speaker 1: 39:02

This will be played because, I agree with you, you should be able to defend I mean, I can go real deep on this one because it's a private business. You can choose not to patronize that business. It's not federal. At this point the federal government says, okay, you can put these stickers up if you don't want people to go in. So it's not that they're adopting some federal law that says you can't protect yourself, or even state law although I guess there's a state law that you can put those stickers up. I just wonder, and I don't think it would hold up because of what I just said, that it's a private business and you can choose whether or not to patronize it. But to me, if I go in someplace where they say you can't carry your gun and I comply with that and I say, okay, I want to patronize your business, but because you tell me I can't carry my gun, I won't, and then something happens and somebody I care about gets hurt yeah, it might even be me. Is that company liable or not? I haven't come up.

Speaker 2: 39:58

It hasn't, but but at least that I'm aware of, I mean, there have been. The problem I've got is if, if and it goes back to the military in me if I'm going in a room with one exit, I'm having a gun on me right period, like I'm not. I'm not playing like I just there's two exits in a theater, both at the front they're both at the front and you, but you got to get through whoever's there first the problem I have, like you, shoot them in the leg right.

Speaker 2: 40:22

yeah, shoot to injure right. The fear that I have and I, to this day, I still I think about it literally every time I walk inside of a mall, because malls almost always have the no gun sign. You're inside the mall and somebody starts shooting and you're carrying and you get behind a pillar and you size up and pop, pop. So that happened. Yeah, it did. Yeah, the person behind me doesn't know if I'm good or bad. Oh, good point, and that's the terror that I have. Hopefully they're following the law, hopefully they are and they're not carrying a gun with them, but same with it, you know.

Speaker 1: 40:55

but what happened with the mall shooter? Do you know? I can't remember what happened with I don't, I don't I don't, because I know he put a heck of a shot. It was like, yeah, it was like many yards, yes, 50, 60 yards yeah, he put a heck.

Speaker 2: 41:08

I heard about it but I did not. I did not study it. I don't know what the outcome was.

Speaker 1: 41:11

Yeah, I mean, hopefully he was acquitted, hopefully everything's okay I purchased insurance for myself.

Speaker 2: 41:16

Yes, as you should I have insurance for self-defense reasons? Right, that's got, I mean, ultimately, I think it's unlimited coverage might be two million or something for legal fees. Yeah, I, I mean again, I don't know. The other thing, though, is it was several years back, but there was an armed robbery at noon at McDonald's on 6th Street. Two guys came in, gunpoint, grabbed somebody, put a gun up to their head. Give me all your money If you pop both of them in the back of the head. It's you know. I mean, you're in a, you're in an area where you can do it. Is that, I mean in my mind? Is that justified? Of course, Is it, though?

Speaker 1: 41:58

Yes.

Speaker 2: 41:58

I mean they were going to steal money Right, Ultimately Right Property McDonald's property.

Speaker 1: 42:04

You have this is the problem I have is this mentality that as long as they're not going to kill you, you have no right to kill them. But how do you know they're not going to kill you? You don't, you don't, and why are you going?

Speaker 2: 42:21

to wait to find out, but that's my fear right now is I would second guess it, I know. In my brain I'd be like, oh God, if you do this, you're going to jail. Why would you second guess it, though? Because they're not threatening me, they're not threatening my family, did you Right? But why? No, that's not why you're second guessing it, it is though because if I sit in front of a judge and a judge says, did you have the opportunity to run?

Speaker 1: 42:45

Why would you, why would you have to sit in front of the judge?

Speaker 2: 42:48

Because I'm going, you're going to jail if you shoot somebody in the back of the head. Why? Because that's how it works 100% of the time if you shoot somebody.

Speaker 1: 42:55

Why does it work that way, though?

Speaker 2: 42:57

Because you're good question Do you think that's a left-wing? Policy or a right-wing policy. I think that is a we have have.

Speaker 1: 43:04

We have to figure answer for you that's a left-wing policy we have. That's why. That's why you would second guess it. I because of the ramifications that might happen after you do it there. Potentially, yes, true story, and this was not in the movie, it's only in the book. You have to read it.

Speaker 1: 43:20

Lone survivor okay you never saw the movie. Nope, you know. You know the story, I do. Marcus Luttrell, his SEAL team, yep, they had a conversation. So they had three people walk in on them while they were hiding in the woods on a mountain and they had three goat farmers I guess. I think they had goats with them, so I'll call them goat farmers. I'm not trying to be, you know.

Speaker 2: 43:42

Anything other than what you're saying, anything other than factual.

Speaker 1: 43:45

I think they were goat farmers. They immediately came out of hiding, grabbed them, put them on the ground. Then they had a discussion Do we kill them or do we let them go? The consensus was we have to let them go because if we don't, the left-wing media is going to have us put in prison. That cost three service members lives. Actually it cost 15, because a helicopter came in and everybody on board was shot and killed. Here's the problem.

Speaker 2: 44:13

The Geneva, the left wing media. That's the problem. The Geneva Convention, the Geneva Convention is not a left wing media. The Geneva Convention is rules of engagement while in war, and it's no different than the old gentleman way of fighting the British.

Speaker 1: 44:28

They weren't sitting there discussing the Geneva Convention.

Speaker 2: 44:31

They were.

Speaker 1: 44:32

No, they weren't.

Speaker 2: 44:33

Because I'm telling you right now they were trained on it what they were discussing was.

Speaker 1: 44:37

They said we have every justification for killing these people. Why? What do they do? Because they'll give their position away. That's not a reason to kill them. I'm just telling you what they said. I'm not telling you whether or not what they said had merit. I'm telling you in the book. That's the discussion they had. The discussion was we have every justification for killing them. What are we going to do? And the decision was made to let them go for fear of the left-wing media.

Speaker 2: 45:05

That has nothing to do with the left-wing media. They would have killed them and that is murder.

Speaker 1: 45:09

That is why no it has nothing to do with the left wing but that's what they talk.

Speaker 2: 45:12

You cannot kill an innocent, unarmed person in another country without going to prison for murder. You murdered somebody. Just because you have a us uniform on does not give you the authority to kill somebody that's innocent. They beat that into our heads. Beat it. Here's the point and here's how hard the training is, whether or not.

Speaker 1: 45:31

You're right, that's not the conversation they had, but I'm telling you, and the fact remains, that what they feared most, just like you, was the left's response to what they did and I'm'm telling you it has nothing to do with the left. Here's what it absolutely does.

Speaker 2: 45:51

No, here's what me being a national guard soldier in fort sale, oklahoma for six months we trained and trained and trained. Before going to iraq they had they called them op for and op for was the, was the, and I mean these guys were to the point that they were dressed with turbans on their heads. I mean they were, they were the enemy that we had, and everywhere we went they were there, and the hardest thing for us to get around was, and we sat through class after class and training after training, and they beat this into our little national guard head. So these seal six people, they knew exactly what they were doing and they and I can promise you what he's doing right here is nothing more than just pushing an agenda, because so you think that conversation didn't happen?

Speaker 1: 46:42

Oh, I think it probably did, but it. But you think that he foresaw that he was going to write a book about it.

Speaker 2: 46:48

I don't know.

Speaker 1: 46:48

All of his team was going to die.

Speaker 2: 46:50

I don't know.

Speaker 1: 46:50

And then he would write a book and he wanted to make sure he pushed this agenda on the side of a mountain while they had this conversation.

Speaker 2: 46:56

Here's the rules of engagement.

Speaker 1: 46:58

I just want you to clarify if that's what you're saying.

Speaker 2: 47:00

I'm saying that every single soldier that has ever put a uniform on to go overseas knows that you cannot kill an innocent civilian. You cannot To the point that when you're in Iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, wherever, it is not illegal for them to have guns, it's not illegal for them to have AR-15s, ak-47s, whatever. They can shoot those AK-47s in front of you and you can't do anything about it. One of their cultural whatevers is to shoot guns off in the air. That's what they do, and they do it out of excitement and they do it out of anger. So when we would be driving down the road, they would pop, pop, pop, pop, pop up in the air. We can't do a thing until that weapon is leveled.

Speaker 2: 47:42

You are violating the Geneva convention, which is not something that's the U S, it's not something that is. That is something that is a worldwide rule of engagement for for war, and it sucks, but that's the also also the rules that you know, you, you, you can't. You can't kill somebody. That's surrendering. You have to give food to hostages, Like all of that stuff is is in this Geneva convention.

Speaker 1: 48:05

You don't think that people on a covert op have different rules.

Speaker 2: 48:09

No, I think they do stuff that they have to do to remain alive, but I think once they get caught.

Speaker 1: 48:17

They still go to prison and they knew that if they let these people go, that they were going to get caught.

Speaker 2: 48:23

They knew that Okay okay, they could have kept.

Speaker 1: 48:27

They could have kept them I don't think that would have worked and I think they thought that wouldn't work okay, and maybe it wouldn't have.

Speaker 2: 48:34

I mean, I don't, I mean obviously they did what they did.

Speaker 1: 48:37

I just like that. You think they had that conversation so that somebody could write a book no, I honestly I think this is, I think, it a political agenda do.

Speaker 2: 48:45

I think they looked at each other and said do we let them go or do we kill them? And every one of them looked at each other and they're like I ain't killing them because I'm going to prison. Oh no, oh no.

Speaker 1: 48:53

They were very ready to kill him. It was one guy that decided it was their team lead that decided they weren't going to kill him. The rest of them said I'll do whatever you tell me to do.

Speaker 2: 49:01

Right.

Speaker 1: 49:17

I don't, I don't know that. Yeah, I don't know their rules of engagement. Okay, I know there are. I know there are like basic intern infantry rules of engagement. Sure, I mean, wasn't it you that told me that they could literally point at you, but as long as they didn't shoot, you couldn't know if you level the weapon?

Speaker 1: 49:32

okay, then you, then you have every right to shoot I had a conversation with someone where they said when we were there, they could point a gun at us and we had to wait for them to fire it before we could shoot. Yeah, no, that's not true at all. Yeah, that's retarded, and I think we're allowed to say that word I don't think we are executive. Was that a? Was that just a meme? Yeah, I wasn't real.

Speaker 2: 49:52

Never mind, that's right it's probably coming, though I think that's nonsensical. There you go. Okay, yeah, um, leveling the weapon is all it takes, and in the assumption that they're, leveling the weapon is all it takes, okay, um, I, I can you know any downward movement in your direction? Yes, 100 as 100%. Well, let me back up, as long as you have been given prior authorization to engage.

Speaker 1: 50:17

Which, again, I understand what you're saying. It's just so nonsensical to me. Why would I need prior authorization to protect myself? I'm in the military, you've trained me. I have a brain myself. Right, you? I'm in the military, you've trained me. Yes, I have a brain. Yep, I get a lot of people in the military maybe the smartest sometimes, okay, yeah.

Speaker 2: 50:39

Yeah, I mean you need to be told what to do, right? I mean that that is okay, that's, that's the best way to put it.

Speaker 1: 50:44

A lot of people in the military have to be told what to do. Okay, okay, perfect.

Speaker 2: 50:47

I'm probably one of them yeah, no even I will say that right, okay, fair enough, yeah, but no, so, like man that really went from from second amendment to rules of engagement to geneva convention too. Yeah, we really are, but yeah, I don't, I don't know man.

Speaker 1: 51:01

Well, I think that's good for today. God, that's a lot. That's a lot. All right, thanks for listening. I don't even know what we're going to talk about the next show, I'm sure I mean something will come up.

Speaker 2: 51:11

Can we talk about the airplane crash?

Speaker 1: 51:13

Briefly Sure.

Speaker 2: 51:14

No, I'm in the next one. Yeah, I don't have to talk about it now.

Speaker 1: 51:16

It'll probably be old news by then.

Speaker 2: 51:18

Yeah, With the rate of the rate of news at this point. Oh my God, oh, it's terrible and I like I just so many.

Speaker 1: 51:32

There's so many questions. I yeah, yeah, as a as a pilot, as a pilot yourself, I just yeah, I don't even understand how it could I watched.

Speaker 2: 51:35

I went back the I think it flight radar 24, flight 24 whatever that app is on your phone that you can watch planes. Yeah, and I watched it. Yeah, and you know most of the planes come in, they make sorry, they make a bank and then they land and so it's not like you know, trump said he had a perfect. It wasn't it. He wasn't lined up even when they crashed. He wasn't lined up according to the map. He was still banking when he came down. So I mean you watching the radar and you can tell something major happened. I mean you see the plane go down and then it goes back the other way and then, like, I mean then it's just the, the system was just all confused of what was going on.

Speaker 1: 52:12

Yeah, I don't know that airspace. I can tell you that you know, when you're flying anything, the last place you ever want to be is on the approach end of a runway Right, and that helicopter was on an approach end of the runway. Now, from what, what I've learned is that in that airspace it's so congested, yeah, that they actually have corridors in the air at certain altitudes right that run across the approach end of that runway. That boggles my mind from a safety perspective, right, everything I know about flying. But I fly out in the midwest where it's wide open spaces and everything's far apart.

Speaker 2: 52:51

So, man, this is a subject of conversation, though, because I'm curious of what your viewpoint is on eliminating the safety board, for the flight safety board of you know they've recently NTSB yeah they've recently eliminated the board that recommends what safety procedures be followed and everything else that didn't cause this accident clearly right but, but. But that was just done this this week and it's like man that based on what premise, though? Uh, I mean it was just one of the cuts is it like we're folding.

Speaker 1: 53:23

So I would be okay with that if they were folding it into like the faa right, which might be what they're doing. It's, it's the for me, and I don't know. I can't equate these two because I don't know, I haven't even heard that, I don't know the specifics. I do think it's important to look at accidents when they happen and determine the cause, because that makes it safer for the future.

Speaker 2: 53:46

I mean, look at what we have done. I mean this sounds terrible at this point to say this, but we as a country have done a great job over the last 16 years of not having this issue yeah, for sure I mean flying has been so incredibly safe yeah and, but you see it in other countries I mean even with this action statistic.

Speaker 2: 54:04

Statistically it's still no doubt I, just like other countries, don't have the safety record we have, and in my mind, the reason we have such a good safety record is because we have checks and balances to make sure that, if something happens, how do we prevent this in the future, and I would hate to get rid of that.

Speaker 1: 54:21

But we'll talk about it later and again I don't think we're getting rid of it.

Speaker 2: 54:24

Yeah, you'd hope not.

Speaker 1: 54:27

I would hope not. I would have to look into the specifics of what the plan is, but to me it almost sounds like you know. I've told you my issue with Homeland Security. Why did we start a whole new department called Homeland Security or Space?

Speaker 2: 54:41

Force.

Speaker 1: 54:41

Or Space Force, we have the CIA, we have NSA, we have the FBI, we have the DEA. Just roll it into those organizations. Let them talk to each other. Let them stop this ego trip of oh well, we did it first and we found, and we're keeping whatever, don't start a whole nother organization that now has to have a leader and 20 people under him and 40 people, about 10,000. Yeah, I mean it, just it gets insane.

Speaker 1: 55:09

It just all it does is expand government, which is the exact opposite of what this country was founded on and what we wanted. What party started?

Speaker 2: 55:18

that.

Speaker 1: 55:19

Yeah, oh, I'm well aware.

Speaker 2: 55:20

Just messing. Oh, I'm well aware.

Speaker 1: 55:21

Don't let me start it. I am not happy with Bush for starting that. To me, that's it's a complete waste of money and all it did was make air traffic, air travel, more complicated and wouldn't have stopped the damn thing that happened that day.

Speaker 2: 55:36

Well, I mean, you wouldn't have got a razor blade through the Well, they were plastic, though what?

Speaker 1: 55:43

My understanding is, everything that they brought on board was plastic.

Speaker 2: 55:45

Really, yeah, that shows how much I looked at it in the last 25 years.

Speaker 1: 55:50

That's what I mean. It wouldn't have triggered anything. It wouldn't have stopped anything.

Speaker 2: 55:53

Huh, I just assumed they were regular box knives.

Speaker 1: 55:56

I don't think so. Huh, I could be wrong, but for some reason in my memory I'm thinking everything that they had was plastic.

Speaker 2: 56:03

Right.

Speaker 1: 56:05

Weird All right.

Speaker 2: 56:06

We're going to dip Well all right, we're gonna dip.

Speaker 1: 56:12

Well, thanks for listening again, again to our went too long again. I went too long again. We'll cut out the last 15 minutes.

Speaker 2: 56:15

I don't know, we'll see all right, see you guys.

Speaker 1: 56:17

See you next time.