Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Joe podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. A mass shooting in a
Speaker 1: wealthy suburb of Chicago left seven n and at least
Speaker 1: thirty injured on Monday. According to police, twenty one year
Speaker 1: old suspect Robert Cremo allegedly opened fire on the Highland
Speaker 1: Park Fourth of July parade, airing off seventy rounds from
Speaker 1: an a R fifteen rifle while disguised as a woman.
Speaker 1: Will have the latest on the shooting and the reaction
Speaker 1: on Tonight's All the Line Welcome Hold the one. I'm
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. Another weekend of horrific violence across the country,
Speaker 1: many shooting incidents in major cities, but notably this mass
Speaker 1: shooting event that occurred just about twenty miles north of
Speaker 1: the city of Chicago. It was targeting. An individual targeted
Speaker 1: a Fourth of July parade, shooting everybody in sight, the
Speaker 1: elderly children. An act of horrific mass murder that just
Speaker 1: seems incomprehensible to anyone who is not a completed utter psychopath,
Speaker 1: as this individual clearly is and now we know more
Speaker 1: details about this. Lake County Police spokesman Chris Pavelli today
Speaker 1: address this and said that the shooter, Robert Crimo, planned
Speaker 1: the shooting in advance. We do believe Cremo pre planned
Speaker 1: this attack for several weeks. He brought a high powered
Speaker 1: rifle to this parade. He accessed the roof of a
Speaker 1: business via a fire escape ladder and began opening fire
Speaker 1: on the innocent Independence Day celebration goers. It's a horrific event.
Speaker 1: There is the shoot who everyone who sees his photos,
Speaker 1: which are now all over the internet along with his videos.
Speaker 1: He had some kind of a rap channel that he
Speaker 1: set up on YouTube that was taken down. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of this guy's content online. I mean he looks
Speaker 1: crazy too most both. I mean, he looks like somebody
Speaker 1: who is deranged, exceeding in his eyes, the face and
Speaker 1: neck tattoos. It looks like somebody who if a red
Speaker 1: flag law won't stop him, who will? Which Illinois has
Speaker 1: red flag law in place? By the way, who does
Speaker 1: a red flag law stop? You start to wonder about this,
Speaker 1: If it won't stop an individual like this, and so
Speaker 1: then is it the takeaway that a red flag law
Speaker 1: wouldn't even be or isn't even effective, despite all the
Speaker 1: conversation recently about them. This is an instance of mental
Speaker 1: health breakdown for this individual. Obviously he's crazy, and it's
Speaker 1: also a case where someone is evil. But immediately anytime
Speaker 1: there's a shooting like this, there is an effort to
Speaker 1: politicize it and make it all about gun control. Here
Speaker 1: is the mayor of Highland Park, Illinois doing just that.
Speaker 1: My recollection of him was as a sweet little boy.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sorry that we're glorifying what he put
Speaker 1: on social media. I don't want to encourage other people
Speaker 1: to think that this is a way to lead into
Speaker 1: this kind of violence. We need to have a very
Speaker 1: real national conversation about why we're okay with allowing weapons
Speaker 1: of war on our streets and why we're okay with
Speaker 1: weekly having mass shootings. Okay, what is that conversation supposed
Speaker 1: to be? We hear about this all the time. What
Speaker 1: is the conversation? There are tens of millions of a
Speaker 1: R fifteen style rifles already in circulations, tens of millions
Speaker 1: in this country right now. There are literally millions of
Speaker 1: people who own them and who never break anymore, and
Speaker 1: pose no threat to anyone except perhaps a tyrannical government
Speaker 1: or a home invasion criminal. So what is the national
Speaker 1: conversation supposed to be exactly? They never say, this is
Speaker 1: just about poking and prodding their political opponents and using
Speaker 1: this moment of tragedy and emotional upheaval to achieve that.
Speaker 1: And then that brings me to the Governor of Illinois, JB. Pritzker,
Speaker 1: who honestly strikes me as a total imbecile on the
Speaker 1: issue of guns, and perhaps far more than just that.
Speaker 1: I don't care that he's very wealthy. I don't care
Speaker 1: that he's the governor of Illinois. He's a jackass. And
Speaker 1: here he is saying that. I mean, this is of
Speaker 1: all the arguments you hear around the Second Amendment and
Speaker 1: guns and gun violence, the it only protects muskets is
Speaker 1: probably for the dumbest people. I mean, that's the one,
Speaker 1: you know, that's the one where you say, this argument
Speaker 1: is so obviously absurd and stupid, so intellectually subpar. How
Speaker 1: could anyone make it with a straight face. Well, here's
Speaker 1: the governor of Illinois saying, the founders thought, you know,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have had an assault weapon. Maybe it. Watch,
Speaker 1: our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don't
Speaker 1: think a single one of them would have said that
Speaker 1: you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with
Speaker 1: a high capacity magazine. Supreme Court's already dealt with this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has already been addressed by the highest
Speaker 1: court in the land. And it does make you sit
Speaker 1: here and say to yourself, what are the British Red coats?
Speaker 1: We just had Independence Day weekend. What are the British
Speaker 1: Red Coats carry? Oh? Yeah, muskets. So they were carrying
Speaker 1: the same thing that the colonists were able to carry,
Speaker 1: so that they can actually meet them on a battlefield
Speaker 1: and be a weapon against tyranny. Oh right, so weapons
Speaker 1: in common usage. Supreme courts already looked at this. If
Speaker 1: anyone who needs a little more assistance on the constitutional
Speaker 1: interpretation side of it. Yeah, they didn't know that assault
Speaker 1: rifles would exist in seventeen seventy six. They also didn't
Speaker 1: know the Internet would exist. So does free speech not
Speaker 1: include the internet? You utter moron, Governor Pritzker. But it Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's hard to believe he's actually that dumb. It feels
Speaker 1: like maybe he's just playing some kind of a political
Speaker 1: game here and playing to his bass because when he
Speaker 1: definitely doesn't want is for people to look at the
Speaker 1: primary the largest city in his state, Chicago, while there
Speaker 1: was this horrific seven fatality mass murder of the weekend
Speaker 1: from this clearly deranged little psychopath who's now in custody
Speaker 1: and facing charges. Put him in prison the rest of
Speaker 1: his life. I mean, if you believe in the death penalty,
Speaker 1: he should definitely get the death penalty. And yet in
Speaker 1: Chicago there were seventy one other shootings over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Seventy one people's shot, eight were killed. Now this is
Speaker 1: almost all handgun violence, by the way, this is all
Speaker 1: with handguns. So all the talk about asault rifles would
Speaker 1: do nothing to stop this. And this is just what
Speaker 1: is now considered somehow the new horrific normal in a
Speaker 1: city like Chicago, that over a holiday weekend in the summer,
Speaker 1: you're going to have not even just a few dozen,
Speaker 1: seventy one people shot, eight people killed in one weekend
Speaker 1: in one city. It's a lot of shootings, it's a
Speaker 1: lot of people getting bullets put in them by criminals,
Speaker 1: a lot of murderers running around in the city of Chicago,
Speaker 1: what is the governor doing, what's the mayor Laurie Liffeld doing?
Speaker 1: Obviously nothing, complaining about white supremacy, talking about the insurrection
Speaker 1: something like that, you know, not actually handling the outrageous
Speaker 1: surge of criminality that continues to rip through Chicago in
Speaker 1: a number of other cities. But Chicago is really in
Speaker 1: for a large city, in a class by itself, and
Speaker 1: the violence that occurs there is occurring in what is
Speaker 1: effectively the most restrictive gun law city in the country,
Speaker 1: in Chicago, DC, maybe New York. So what exactly are
Speaker 1: they achieving by lecturing us on a national conversation about
Speaker 1: firearms that focuses on assault rifles and says we can
Speaker 1: only have muskets when there are gangbangers killing dozens and
Speaker 1: dozens of people every weekend with handguns in their main
Speaker 1: city run entirely by Democrats. They have no answer. They
Speaker 1: just want to talk more about the insurrect Love more
Speaker 1: on this with retired FBI from James Gagliano in a moment. First,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about protecting your online data.
Speaker 1: A lot of companies promise your privacy is guaranteed, but
Speaker 1: that's just not true. That's why you need a new
Speaker 1: privacy and cybersecurity application tool called Secure. It's spelled sek.
Speaker 1: You are. Secure is using proprietary encryption and offering secure
Speaker 1: instant messaging and email with secure all of your communications
Speaker 1: based on servers and data centers hosted in Switzerland without
Speaker 1: using any of the big tech platforms. Privacy is a
Speaker 1: big issue now. Without real security, people can read your emails, messages,
Speaker 1: even your bank information. Secure will never mind your data
Speaker 1: and never ask your phone number. You can send emails
Speaker 1: your doctor, banker, lawyer, or anyone else with total confidence
Speaker 1: you're not being spot on by your internet provider or
Speaker 1: big peck. Secure is your solution to stop the constant
Speaker 1: theft of your digital identity. Costs only five dollars to
Speaker 1: the messenger, only ten dollars to the messenger and email
Speaker 1: combination package. Go to secure dot com and take back
Speaker 1: your obviously today that's seku are dot com and use
Speaker 1: promo code buck for twenty five percent off. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back with more. Hold the line. There was no
Speaker 1: signs of trouble. I saw no signs of trouble, and
Speaker 1: if I had to sease signs, I would say something.
Speaker 1: But there's no signs of trouble. That was Paul Krimo,
Speaker 1: the uncle of the alleged Highland Park gunman, telling local
Speaker 1: media that he saw no warning signs from his nephew,
Speaker 1: the alleged mass murderer from the fourth of July Parade
Speaker 1: shooting over the weekend. Police alleged that his nephew, Robert Kremo,
Speaker 1: as we said, had been planning the shooting for weeks
Speaker 1: in advance that left seven dead. They have yet to
Speaker 1: uncover or discuss a motive. Publicly joining me now to
Speaker 1: give his insights into yesterday shooting, retired FBI Supervisory Special
Speaker 1: Agent James Deagliano. James, thanks for being one of us.
Speaker 1: It would it be with you, bub So that's tough. Right,
Speaker 1: We sit here again another discussion about a vicious mass murder,
Speaker 1: shooting of innocent people, and there's a lot of we'll
Speaker 1: take a step away from the part is in finger pointing,
Speaker 1: it happens right away. The mental health side of this,
Speaker 1: I think that's one place where both sides can agree.
Speaker 1: There's clearly a problem right that these individuals. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy's a psychopath. You don't have to have a
Speaker 1: degree in psychiatry to know that. How do you catch
Speaker 1: this stuff? James? I mean, I'm seeing some of your
Speaker 1: former colleagues and the FBI who are profilers going on
Speaker 1: TV to talk about it. Is that something that might
Speaker 1: be applicable, useful in advance of these incidents? How does
Speaker 1: that all work? I mean, buckets we talked in in
Speaker 1: the wake of a number of mass shootings like this,
Speaker 1: and it's a complex issue. As you know, there exists
Speaker 1: no panacea. I mean, there's no profiler in the world
Speaker 1: that's going to get these things right every time. And
Speaker 1: I think you alluded to it at the top. Evil exists.
Speaker 1: You want to tie it into mental health, of course,
Speaker 1: you want to tie it into a proliferation of weapons, okay,
Speaker 1: but there's not one set thing that we could do
Speaker 1: to stop this. Now. This guy fit the profile right
Speaker 1: disaffected or disenfranchised. And I'm not a psychologist or a
Speaker 1: sociologist either, but I think we can make that leap
Speaker 1: to say that this was a disenfranchised young man between
Speaker 1: the ages of eighteen and twenty five. And to your point,
Speaker 1: they come in all shapes and sizes and colors, and
Speaker 1: they hewed to different ideological ends of the spectrum. So
Speaker 1: there's not a one size fits all here. But it
Speaker 1: was a legally obtained weapon, and you had somebody that
Speaker 1: did clearly have and again I'm not trying to diagnose
Speaker 1: it on your show, but clearly had some type of
Speaker 1: mental issues. And I've been describing this all day as
Speaker 1: these people are grievance collectors. Something happened, something triggered it,
Speaker 1: whether they were an in cell, or whether they felt
Speaker 1: like they were marginalized, or whether or not they got
Speaker 1: online in their parents' basement and were radicalized, or heard
Speaker 1: some sirens call, some clarion call to go do something.
Speaker 1: Now we know of none of those things right now
Speaker 1: that exist because police have not released any of it.
Speaker 1: But if this goes to form, that's what we're gonna find.
Speaker 1: Somebody on the periphery, somebody marginalized, somebody that had been
Speaker 1: collecting grievances and decided to take it out yesterday in
Speaker 1: Highland Park, Illinois and kill. We just now know that
Speaker 1: there are now seven people dead and buck over two
Speaker 1: dozen wounded. James the state of Illinois, I understand it
Speaker 1: does have red flag laws, right, so this falls under
Speaker 1: the okay we keep hearing, if only we had the following.
Speaker 1: The state of Illinois has red flag laws. Illinois has
Speaker 1: a number of measures in place to prevent people from
Speaker 1: getting firearms, certainly illegally. I believe they have an assault
Speaker 1: rifle band, but I might need to check on that
Speaker 1: one in the state. I think it's it's difficult generally.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry they don't have a sault rifle band. But
Speaker 1: this would have fallen. This would fall under a case
Speaker 1: where the individual was even with the elevated age that
Speaker 1: people have talked about recently and the most recent legislation,
Speaker 1: he was twenty two, so he wouldn't have been covered
Speaker 1: in that restriction. So what are we supposed to think
Speaker 1: would have been What is the measure other than this
Speaker 1: guy's crazy lock him up indefinitely that law enforcement could
Speaker 1: take in advance of him actually engaging in this heinous plot. Sure,
Speaker 1: and we live in a free and open society and
Speaker 1: we don't want to live under martial law. And in
Speaker 1: order for us to live in a free and open
Speaker 1: society and cherish our civil liberties, these things are going
Speaker 1: to happen, and people are gonna push back and say, well,
Speaker 1: you've got to stop it. Well, every time somebody says
Speaker 1: something hateful and bigoted, you can't lock them up for it. Yes,
Speaker 1: we know the difference between fomenting and inciting riots or
Speaker 1: hate speech designed to get people hurt. We understand those differences.
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is the First Amendment doesn't protect
Speaker 1: the right to free speech that you and I like, Buck,
Speaker 1: It protects free speech that we abhore. Now you mentioned Chicago.
Speaker 1: This is a city much like the city of New York,
Speaker 1: which is sixty miles south from where I live, and
Speaker 1: I spent twenty five years there as an FBI agent,
Speaker 1: some of the most draconian laws related to weapons. Right now,
Speaker 1: this past fourth or July weekend that just concluded, I
Speaker 1: want to give you some staggering statistics about the city
Speaker 1: of Chicago, which is only twenty miles away from Highland Park,
Speaker 1: seventy one people shot this weekend Buck. Eight were killed.
Speaker 1: Last year over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago
Speaker 1: one hundred plus shot, nineteen killed twenty twenty, the height
Speaker 1: of the pandemic. Buck in Chicago over Fourth of July weekend,
Speaker 1: seventy nine shot and fifteen killed. So look, that's not
Speaker 1: a red herring. I'm not trying to you know, point
Speaker 1: people in another direction. But it's important we understand when
Speaker 1: we talk about mass shootings, which are generally described as
Speaker 1: three or more people wounded or killed. These go on
Speaker 1: in perpetuity and in big cities, in large cities, they
Speaker 1: happen multiple times every weekend. That's where we have a
Speaker 1: proliferation of illegal weapons. Now, I wish I could have
Speaker 1: and I know you would have done the same thing,
Speaker 1: stopped this depraved miscreant, this Cretan who perpetrated this awful, awful,
Speaker 1: heinous crime. But if you're gonna live in a city
Speaker 1: or in a date, we're in a country that doesn't
Speaker 1: hue to martial law. Buck evil exists. We do the
Speaker 1: best we can to get out in front of it
Speaker 1: and prevent it. But it's not a perfect, full safe system.
Speaker 1: Anything that you see here, James, that you think so far,
Speaker 1: I know, we're still getting a lot of details. But
Speaker 1: law enforcements miss the red miss the red flag, miss
Speaker 1: the indicators here, or is this just too hard to
Speaker 1: catch in advance based on the info we have so far. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're always going to get that where people are gonna
Speaker 1: are understandably gonna push back and go how come you
Speaker 1: didn't know this, or how come you didn't stop this?
Speaker 1: Or if this person was quote unquote on your radar,
Speaker 1: how come you didn't take them off the street. Well,
Speaker 1: we can't arrest people just because we think they might
Speaker 1: do something. There has to be two parts of a crime, right.
Speaker 1: It has to be the actual act the actors rays,
Speaker 1: and then it has to be the men's ray the
Speaker 1: thought process to do it. A lot of times you
Speaker 1: can't hit these things off in a buck. I think
Speaker 1: one thing that strikes me is police are still referring
Speaker 1: to this person as a person of interest. Now, person
Speaker 1: of interest is not somebody charged with a crime. This individual,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge now it could have happened and they
Speaker 1: just haven't announced it yet, has not been charged with
Speaker 1: a crime. So he's considered to be a person of
Speaker 1: interest who was possibly involved in a crime. So it's
Speaker 1: going to be interesting to see as the police are
Speaker 1: gathering information. They're certainly scrubbing the internet where where this
Speaker 1: individual was involved in tons of disturbing imagery and postings,
Speaker 1: and they're obviously going to be doing good old fashioned
Speaker 1: detective work talking to people and finding out who this
Speaker 1: person came in contact with, did anyone inspire him or
Speaker 1: direct him to do this hateful act, and if so,
Speaker 1: was there some type of conspiracy and roll those people
Speaker 1: up as well. We'll know more than the next few days.
Speaker 1: Buck James. Always appreciate the expertise in the perspective. Thanks
Speaker 1: for joining us, Thanks for having me. With calls for
Speaker 1: a stricter gun control likely to increase in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1: The state of New York has passed a new measure
Speaker 1: that essentially nullifies the Supreme Court's recent ruling on concealed
Speaker 1: Harry permit. We'll have more on that with senior legal
Speaker 1: correspondent at the Federalist Margot Cleveland. Coming up first, let's
Speaker 1: talk about pro checking your most viable asset, your home.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this, but there was
Speaker 1: a recent story about an Arizona real estate agent that
Speaker 1: found the home she lived and was listed for sale.
Speaker 1: The problem was he wasn't selling her home. She was
Speaker 1: the victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime happening
Speaker 1: all over the country. According to the experts at home
Speaker 1: title lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and hard to detect.
Speaker 1: An identity thief simply creates a fake title transfer for
Speaker 1: your home and refiles as the new owner. Then he
Speaker 1: can take out loans on your home or sell it.
Speaker 1: Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and neither does
Speaker 1: homeowners insurance. Home title lock does. Home title Lock puts
Speaker 1: a barrier around your home's title the instant they detect
Speaker 1: anyone tamper with their home's title, They help shut it
Speaker 1: down and help get your home back in your name.
Speaker 1: Here's what you should do. Go to home title loock
Speaker 1: dot com and read the testimony from FBI agents and
Speaker 1: government officials. Then register address to see if you're already
Speaker 1: a victim and don't even know it. And when you
Speaker 1: protect your home, tell them Buck sent you to get
Speaker 1: thirty free days of protection. Home titlelock dot com. That's
Speaker 1: home titlelock dot com will be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court made
Speaker 1: it clear that the Constitution guarantees law abiding citizens the
Speaker 1: right to keep and bear arms for self defense, both
Speaker 1: in their homes and in public. But on Friday, New
Speaker 1: York Governor Kathy Hukill signed into law a new gun
Speaker 1: control legislation that effectively nullifies the High courts pro Second
Speaker 1: Amendment decision the Supreme Court's decisions were certainly setbacks, but
Speaker 1: we view them as only temporary setbacks because I refuse,
Speaker 1: as I've said from day one, I refuse to surrender
Speaker 1: my right as governor to protect New Yorkers from gun
Speaker 1: violence or any other form of harm. We're not going backwards.
Speaker 1: They may think they can change our lives with the
Speaker 1: stroke of a pen, but we have pens too. I
Speaker 1: would say that Governor Hokel is rejecting federalism, but she's
Speaker 1: a moron and doesn't know what federalism is. So there's that.
Speaker 1: Jolie Outh reaction. Senior legal correspondent at The Federalist, Margot Cleveland. Margot,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us, Thanks for having me. Okay,
Speaker 1: so first just tell us. I mean, you wrote an
Speaker 1: in depth piece about New York's decision to tighten already
Speaker 1: very strict and unconstitutional in fact gun laws. So what
Speaker 1: have they done? This hasn't gotten a lot of media play,
Speaker 1: yet what have they done in response? So, Buck, they
Speaker 1: passed a law that actually did two very problematic things. First,
Speaker 1: they put in very specific provisions for someone to apply
Speaker 1: and obtain a concealed carey permit, and among other things,
Speaker 1: that required very extensive training as well as background checks
Speaker 1: and things along those lines, which is not the problem.
Speaker 1: The problem is that it also requires the individuals to
Speaker 1: turn over the names of any social media accounts they've
Speaker 1: used in the last three years. And the problem there
Speaker 1: is are they going to be looking at what an
Speaker 1: individual's speech is to deny them the permit. Now, obviously,
Speaker 1: when you have people on social media saying I'm going
Speaker 1: to kill someone, things along those lines, completely legitimate issues.
Speaker 1: But not if they're all of a sudden looking at
Speaker 1: things such as we're going to fight back, we're not
Speaker 1: going to election fraud happen, is that going to be
Speaker 1: a basis to exclude it. So that's one part of
Speaker 1: the opinion that's problematic. It sounds like they are going
Speaker 1: to be looking at an individual's speech, and we're not
Speaker 1: talking about violent speech threats, but just speech in general.
Speaker 1: But the bigger problem is what the statute did. It
Speaker 1: went through a through sub I think t sort of
Speaker 1: places that it defined as sensitive places. I can I
Speaker 1: Actually we have the Governor of Margo saying those sensitive
Speaker 1: places I want to have your react to it. Go ahead,
Speaker 1: shots ring out, flags come down, and nothing ever changes
Speaker 1: except here in New York. In New York, we are
Speaker 1: taking bold, strong action. We're tightening the red flag laws
Speaker 1: to keep guns away from dangerous people, and we're raising
Speaker 1: the age of semi automatic weapons so no eighteen year
Speaker 1: old can walk in on their birthday and walk out
Speaker 1: with an AAR fifteenth. Those days are over. Sorry, she
Speaker 1: actually was going to list the places. That was a
Speaker 1: different clip. So tell us about the places. Sure, So
Speaker 1: the places are so broad it would have been easier
Speaker 1: to say where you could carry a weapon, which it
Speaker 1: sounds like is from your house walking down the street
Speaker 1: to your car, because it excludes any places where the
Speaker 1: public well come together. Could be in a protest, it
Speaker 1: could be at Times Square, it could be at a
Speaker 1: gathering to listen to, a music festival, a museum. It
Speaker 1: goes through and details all of these places as sensitive places.
Speaker 1: And the reason this is key is the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: made clear the right to keep in bear arms is
Speaker 1: bearing arms outside the home for self defense. And the
Speaker 1: exception in the opinion spoke of sensitive places such as
Speaker 1: polling places, the legislature, and schools. It didn't expand it
Speaker 1: beyond that. And in fact, the Court said you can't
Speaker 1: just say, someplace being populous is enough to make it
Speaker 1: a sensitive place. So what New York did, and they
Speaker 1: don't look like they're embarrassed by, they're actually proud, is
Speaker 1: that they said, yeah, that's what the court said. But
Speaker 1: work going to define sensitive places so broadly that the
Speaker 1: right to bear arms in self defense is virtually a nullity, yea, Margot.
Speaker 1: So how does this work in terms of possible legal challenges,
Speaker 1: because it seems like what New York State's responses to
Speaker 1: a constitutional ruling here is we're just going to find
Speaker 1: a way through bureaucratic shenanigans essentially to achieve the same result,
Speaker 1: which is to prevent people from legally being able. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's clearly what they're trying to do, right. This isn't
Speaker 1: stopping criminals who are buying guns out of the back
Speaker 1: of cars illegally, because they're buying them illegally, So it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any difference to those people. So for those
Speaker 1: like me who are residents of New York. By the way,
Speaker 1: so this is particularly interesting given that I think I'm
Speaker 1: about to be applying for a concealed carry permit at
Speaker 1: one point, is it no longer in keeping with the
Speaker 1: law here and keeping with the response of this sort
Speaker 1: of the decision of the Supreme Court, I mean, can
Speaker 1: they say, yeah, sure, you have a right to conceal
Speaker 1: car it's just going to cost you a ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollar feet and you got away five years. I mean,
Speaker 1: at some point, is it just obvious that they're refusing
Speaker 1: to actually obey the constitution. So that point's already here,
Speaker 1: and I would expect either this week or next week,
Speaker 1: you're going to have what's called a facial challenge to
Speaker 1: the law. And a facial challenge is where someone sues
Speaker 1: and says, just the way it's written it is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: And I think you're going to see two arguments there.
Speaker 1: You're going to see the argument that requiring me to
Speaker 1: turn over my speech my social media, especially if if
Speaker 1: someone doing it anonymously, violates my First Amendment rights, and
Speaker 1: you can't force me to give up those rights to
Speaker 1: exercise my Second Amendment rights right. And I think that
Speaker 1: you're also going to have a facial challenge saying, on
Speaker 1: its face, these sensitive places are not sensitive places. We
Speaker 1: need the Core to declare that because otherwise I could
Speaker 1: be subject to a felony, which is what the Court septs.
Speaker 1: But you're also going to have as applied challenges. That
Speaker 1: would be when someone like you goes in and applies
Speaker 1: and you're waiting, and you're waiting and they say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we need ten thousand dollars and where we looked at
Speaker 1: what you said online, we don't think you get it
Speaker 1: because you said maybe something that seemed right wing. Then
Speaker 1: you can sue and say they denied it based on
Speaker 1: my speech, not based on my moral character, but based
Speaker 1: on my viewpoint speech, or because it took so long
Speaker 1: and it costs so much money, to other things that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court talked about in the opinion. They said,
Speaker 1: it's fine to have these permitting schemes. What is not fine, though,
Speaker 1: is if they have rules that are so stringent that
Speaker 1: it prevents an ordinary American from exercise their right to
Speaker 1: bear arms. And it's is it possible, Margot? It seems
Speaker 1: like the game that some of these Democrat governors in
Speaker 1: place like New York will play now is all right.
Speaker 1: They'll just keep on coming up with new unconstitutional restrictions
Speaker 1: and force it through force the challenge. Force the challenge,
Speaker 1: I mean, can a governor be held in content by
Speaker 1: a federal Court, like, I just wonder, is there any
Speaker 1: is there any mechanism here to protect people from just
Speaker 1: the continued bad faith violation of state law or a
Speaker 1: federal law rather by a state governor. Not really that's
Speaker 1: an answer. There isn't. And in fact, you make a
Speaker 1: great point is what's going to happen is it's going
Speaker 1: to start with litigation and it will go up to
Speaker 1: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. If the Second Circuit okays it, Supreme
Speaker 1: Court might decide, you know what, we're not going to
Speaker 1: talk about this for a while. It was almost twenty
Speaker 1: years or maybe a little over twenty years since they
Speaker 1: took their last Second Amendment case. The good thing, at
Speaker 1: least with the latest ruling by the Supreme Court was
Speaker 1: it gave a lot of guidance. And that's why when
Speaker 1: I did my analysis, I could say, hey, this is
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court said, and this is definitely crossing
Speaker 1: the line when you define sensitive places that broadly. But
Speaker 1: the short answers know that the state legislative branches and
Speaker 1: the governors they can pretty much just thumb their nose
Speaker 1: at the law and the consequence is just going to
Speaker 1: be mortal litigation. Amazing, Margot, great work on this, Thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us, Thanks so much. Fame. Psychologist Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson is refusing to back down after being suspended from
Speaker 1: Twitter for mis gendering transactor Elliott Page. Author and commist
Speaker 1: David Marcus joins us to give his take on the controversy.
Speaker 1: When we come back, Twitter is dropping the censorship hammer
Speaker 1: once again. Latest victim is psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was
Speaker 1: recently suspended from the platform for tweeting remember when pride
Speaker 1: was a sin and Ellen Page just had her breast
Speaker 1: removed by a criminal physician. Question Mark now struck in
Speaker 1: a battle with Twitter over his suspended account. The only
Speaker 1: way he's allowed back on the platform is to acknowledge
Speaker 1: what he tweeted was against the Twitter guidelines, and he says,
Speaker 1: no bleeping way, no bloody way, as Jordan Peterson would say,
Speaker 1: Jodian I to discuss authored columns David Marcus, David, what's
Speaker 1: up man doing? Well? Buck? I like when he like
Speaker 1: car says a little bit too. Yeah, you know, I
Speaker 1: know that Canadians say bloody, but apparently Jordan Peterson says
Speaker 1: it all the time about Canada. Ay this is from
Speaker 1: your piece in the Daily Wire. There are many myself included,
Speaker 1: who have sprung themselves from Twitter jail by just deleting
Speaker 1: the tweets. So the logic here, being a Twitter is
Speaker 1: so clearly engross the acting and bad faith, choosing only
Speaker 1: one side to punish. So yeah, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: what they do, right, bend the knee or you're off. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I mean, I'm sure you're a surprised buck to
Speaker 1: know that I've been suspended from Twitter for maybe intemperate
Speaker 1: tweets once or twice. Yeah, that's my approach. My attitude
Speaker 1: is I'll delete the tweet, I'll spend my time in
Speaker 1: Twitter jail like it's good fellas, and jump back on
Speaker 1: the platform because these people clearly aren't acting in good faith.
Speaker 1: So when I saw the video of Peterson saying he
Speaker 1: would rather die than do that, I was interested, and
Speaker 1: I thought about it, and I realized it makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense because this guy's whole philosophy that has really helped
Speaker 1: millions of people around the world is rooted in the
Speaker 1: concept of radical truth, that what you say has to
Speaker 1: be honest, not just for the benefit of the person
Speaker 1: that you're talking to. Although that too, but for your
Speaker 1: own benefit, right. This is why he won't use people's pronouns,
Speaker 1: and this is why he will never delete that tweet.
Speaker 1: And although I don't share his philosophical perspective, I have
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot of respect for it. By
Speaker 1: the way, you mentioned this, he's drawing quite a line
Speaker 1: in the sand on this one. This is doctor Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson telling everybody over his dead body that tweet gets eleted. Watch.
Speaker 1: I've essentially been banned from Twitter as a consequence. I
Speaker 1: say banned, although technically I have been suspended, but the
Speaker 1: suspension will not be lifted unless I delete the hateful
Speaker 1: tweet in question, and I would rather die than do that,
Speaker 1: and hopefully it will not come to that, although who
Speaker 1: the hell knows. In these increasingly strange days, indeed, who
Speaker 1: the hell knows, it feels like it does keep getting crazier.
Speaker 1: I think there was a little bit of a moment
Speaker 1: here where Elon must it seemed, put a little bit
Speaker 1: of fear into the Twitter Rottie. But they are back
Speaker 1: at their old games, it seems, I mean, there is
Speaker 1: Elon I'm still hoping buys Twitter and manages to turn
Speaker 1: it into a platform for the free exchange of ideas.
Speaker 1: But one thing I found fascinating about the Jordan Peterson
Speaker 1: situation here is it's not even clear to me what,
Speaker 1: like was this a dead naming issue? Like well, like
Speaker 1: even in the crazy rules that Twitter uses. I was
Speaker 1: sitting to say, wait, why was he suspended for this one?
Speaker 1: Like I've said worse stuff than that on Twitter? I
Speaker 1: think No, I mean, I have no idea. One of
Speaker 1: my Twitter suspensions was it was right after Trump took
Speaker 1: out Suleimani and there was all this talk about, oh no,
Speaker 1: the Iranians are going to attack New York and I
Speaker 1: tweeted something to the effect of if they touched New
Speaker 1: York will turn it into a parking lot. And I
Speaker 1: was suspended, I guess for insulting the nation of Iran.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Buck. These aren't rules, right, there's no rules.
Speaker 1: There's just angry twenty somethings with colorful hair and pronouns
Speaker 1: in their bios who want to control your life. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's all there is. That's the that's the entire moderation process.
Speaker 1: That's why Donald Trump can't have a Twitter account, and
Speaker 1: the eyetola can. I mean, you try to figure it
Speaker 1: out because I can. You know, Jordan Peterson put out
Speaker 1: a statement on the suspension as well. He said, there
Speaker 1: are This is about the rules issue. There are no
Speaker 1: rules on Twitter except don't do what we don't like.
Speaker 1: Today they are always applied post hoc by algorithms and
Speaker 1: idiots bent on maintaining their woke superiority. I just think
Speaker 1: it is worth everyone noting because so much of now
Speaker 1: our communication, but really also national perception, at least in
Speaker 1: the news world and news cycles, is driven by these
Speaker 1: social media platforms that they did used to claim for
Speaker 1: years that there was no ideological bias. It was just algorithms, man,
Speaker 1: It's just the machine that you can't even see with
Speaker 1: all the fancy numbers that that we're doing this. And
Speaker 1: it wasn't like they were going after conservatives and we
Speaker 1: were crazy for saying they were targeting us. I remember
Speaker 1: this twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen. If you said it, oh
Speaker 1: you're conspiracy, there's now they just straight up tell you, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, Ben the Nee or else peasant, No, I
Speaker 1: think that's right. And a big problem with this larger
Speaker 1: than just the Peterson situation or the trans issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: you go back to COVID, and you look at everything
Speaker 1: that was censored and deleted and and taken offline, not
Speaker 1: just by social media, but by our news media. We unfortunately,
Speaker 1: at this point, have a historical record of the period
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty and twenty twenty one that is utterly biased,
Speaker 1: utterly incomplete, often completely inaccurate. And twenty years from now,
Speaker 1: when students and historians go back to study this period,
Speaker 1: the most consequential thing you have is the contemporaneous accounts. Right,
Speaker 1: They're going to be going to the New York Times,
Speaker 1: They're going to be going to the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook, and they're going to be seeing wise
Speaker 1: And I don't know what we do about it. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I really like this this fellow. I've had
Speaker 1: him on my shows a few times. Zubie I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're familiar with Zubie Um he put out does does
Speaker 1: great work. I mean, I'm like, legitimately a fan of
Speaker 1: a out of the stuff that he puts out. He
Speaker 1: wrote that a society that punishes people who tell the
Speaker 1: truth and rewards those who lie is not sustainable in
Speaker 1: the long term. I think that's where we are now
Speaker 1: as a culture. I think the people are punished for
Speaker 1: telling the truth and rewarded for telling lies. And that
Speaker 1: is not a bug, it is a feature. This is
Speaker 1: almost a desired a desired status by those who are
Speaker 1: in positions of power to direct the conversation. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: it's and it's why I'm sympathetic to Peterson's position. And
Speaker 1: you know, a friend of mine who's who I worked with,
Speaker 1: the Federalist who's still there, John Davidson, is also banned
Speaker 1: from Twitter right now. He does, honestly some of the
Speaker 1: best reporting from the border. He knows it, you know,
Speaker 1: he lives there, and he's in the same boat. He
Speaker 1: won't delete it. I respect the choice. I think it's
Speaker 1: a hard choice. But yeah, as to Zoobie's point, there's
Speaker 1: something to be said for I'm not I'm not gonna lie,
Speaker 1: and if that means I can't tweet, I can't tweet,
Speaker 1: you know. And I've been talking about this. You remember
Speaker 1: the I think it was was in Souls and Eatson's
Speaker 1: addressed to Harvard University where he said live not by lies,
Speaker 1: and that was really the theme of the speech. And
Speaker 1: what we see increasingly is now we are a society
Speaker 1: where wokeness and Therefore the Democrat id the the center
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party these days demand that you live
Speaker 1: by lies. Actually, you know, men or women, women or
Speaker 1: men up as down, down as up. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is where we are actually as a society. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. And I think everyone does
Speaker 1: have to draw their lines. I think, you know, in
Speaker 1: the piece I mentioned, there's polling that shows that Americans
Speaker 1: are actually moving away from the idea that men can
Speaker 1: become women. There's there's been this shift in the direction
Speaker 1: of biological sex as determining gender. But that same poll
Speaker 1: shows that that Americans really want to be nice to people, right,
Speaker 1: They want to be kind, They don't want to be jerkes. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, we might be getting to the
Speaker 1: point where we have to risk being a jerk every
Speaker 1: once in a while just to tell the truth. I
Speaker 1: think that is where we are, by the way, and
Speaker 1: I do believe that the left actually exploits the innate
Speaker 1: kindness and decency of the American people on a regular
Speaker 1: basis to get through the agenda. Essentially, go along with this,
Speaker 1: just be polite to people, We'll just be polite to people.
Speaker 1: Very quickly turns into celebrate drag Queen Story Hour with
Speaker 1: you know, five year olds having grown men dancing in
Speaker 1: their faces, you know, provocatively, like this is what ends
Speaker 1: up happening with. Just be polite to people, so I
Speaker 1: think people have had enough or else you're a bigot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: or else you're a bigot, exactly, David always incifu, Matt,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us. Comedian Samantha b used a
Speaker 1: recent monologue to incite pro abortion activists to harass Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices. We'll have the video for you in tonight's
Speaker 1: Wickets Stay with Us. Samantha b incites the mob against
Speaker 1: conservative Supreme Court justices, and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of the
Speaker 1: Squad got an unpleasant reception at a recent concert in
Speaker 1: her home state. We have those stories and more in
Speaker 1: quick Hits. Let's dive into it. Look, the lives are
Speaker 1: not handling the restoration of the Supreme Court to a
Speaker 1: deliberative body based upon constitutionalism instead of what they had had,
Speaker 1: which is a left wing super legislature that just decides
Speaker 1: what is best for people and then puts it from
Speaker 1: drops it from on high like some eat it from
Speaker 1: the heavens, or some people would suggests from another place
Speaker 1: given some of the outcomes. So that's what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and they're very upset. They're irrational, Their arguments don't hold up,
Speaker 1: their arguments don't actually make much sense. Here is Samantha Bee, though,
Speaker 1: trying to use the comedy platform. She's a comedian, aha
Speaker 1: comedy platform. She has to call for the harassment of
Speaker 1: Justice Alito for example. Why I can't describe how painful
Speaker 1: it is to be here now in a place where
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has the power to erase fifty years
Speaker 1: of constitutional law. Make no mistake, this is not where
Speaker 1: it ends. Conservatives will not rest until they have come
Speaker 1: for all of our rights. Everything we have fought for
Speaker 1: could be lost unless we take it back. It's not
Speaker 1: just about voting in November. It's about doing everything in
Speaker 1: our power to protect and help vulnerable people access abortion
Speaker 1: across state lines. And we have to raise hell in
Speaker 1: our cities. In Washington, in every restaurant, Justice Alito eats
Speaker 1: at for the rest of his life. Because if Republicans
Speaker 1: have made our lives hell, it's time to return the
Speaker 1: favor harass Supreme Court justices. This is what she's saying.
Speaker 1: And I know if she's called out on that. She's
Speaker 1: they're always just kidding. Did she seem like she was
Speaker 1: kidding there and seeing she was getting it all to me?
Speaker 1: But she's classless and unfunny and dumb on top of
Speaker 1: it all, doesn't really know what the hell she's talking about.
Speaker 1: But that's pretty standard these days, where the talking heads,
Speaker 1: the celebrities and various entertainers and influencers who are weighing
Speaker 1: in on constitutional law. Do you think any of them
Speaker 1: have even read the Alito decision that overturned Row. Do
Speaker 1: you think a single one of them even read the
Speaker 1: first page? Now, of course not. They just have emotions
Speaker 1: and feelings, shouting, yelling things, That's what they have. And
Speaker 1: then there are other lives out there who are concerned
Speaker 1: about American flags apparently, and how they can trigger people. Watch.
Speaker 1: On July fourth, me and my family were celebrating and
Speaker 1: shooting all fireworks and a jeep was coming down the streets,
Speaker 1: so we had to get out of the street. And
Speaker 1: as the jeep went by, it had two American flags
Speaker 1: flying high, and in the South that typically means trumplicants
Speaker 1: and supporters and all that wonderful. But I looked at
Speaker 1: my neighbor, and I asked her if she got a
Speaker 1: knot in her stomach when she saw the flag now,
Speaker 1: and she said, yes, she did. And I just attribute
Speaker 1: that to the insurrection. I attribute that to all the
Speaker 1: proud boy and white supremacist waving the flag high and
Speaker 1: just the Trump cards' Oh you just see her, You're like,
Speaker 1: she's just such a miserable cat lady. It's so obvious,
Speaker 1: you know, just so empty inside. I feel badly for her,
Speaker 1: while it is also amusing see somebody who is scared
Speaker 1: of the American flag in lotto more far left wing
Speaker 1: number of Congress, of the so called squad. As well,
Speaker 1: she didn't get the reception she was expecting at a
Speaker 1: concert in Minnesota over the weekend. Watch this one evening. Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't even know why they are buoying her, but
Speaker 1: somebody whose political positions deserve getting booed, so I guess
Speaker 1: it's something love about doing. Do we even know why
Speaker 1: were they booing her? Guys, I don't even know what
Speaker 1: was that was that all about? Just oh, because she's
Speaker 1: just awful? Oh okay, well, you know, in that case,
Speaker 1: looks like Minnesota's waking up because she is awful, there
Speaker 1: you go. Oh good job Minnesota. Maybe stop electing so
Speaker 1: many Democrats that ruin everything for everybody. Just an idea
Speaker 1: that's ever Tonight told the line the no Spinoos with
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly is next. She'll tie