Speaker 1: Mr Garbutschof teared down this wall. Or either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got healthcare,
Speaker 1: all of it, then you can keep your plan. If
Speaker 1: you are satisfied with Trump is not president of the
Speaker 1: United States, take it to a bank. Together, we will
Speaker 1: make America great again. It's what you've been waiting for
Speaker 1: all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called
Speaker 1: buck toll free at eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred two eight to five
Speaker 1: the Future of talk radio, buck Sexton. If your comments
Speaker 1: this week and those of our president have been pathetically weak, Danilosh,
Speaker 1: I want you to know that we will support your
Speaker 1: two children in the way that we will not you
Speaker 1: will not n Alright, Please just keep the money out
Speaker 1: of Rubio, okay, if he wants to run again. Am
Speaker 1: I supposed to have a kevlar vest? Am I supposed
Speaker 1: to strap it to my leg or put it in
Speaker 1: my desk? You just told this group of people that
Speaker 1: you are standing up for them. You're not standing up
Speaker 1: for them until so I don't left. I want to
Speaker 1: thank Dana Lash of the n r A and also
Speaker 1: Sheriff Scott Israel for being here to listen to your questions.
Speaker 1: Why do we come back? Welcome to the buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show everybody. It was a debacle last night, As
Speaker 1: I knew it would be. The CNN forum on gun control.
Speaker 1: Senator Marker Rubio showed up. I don't really know what
Speaker 1: he thought he was accomplishing. He was there, and n
Speaker 1: RA a spokesperson Dana lash my former colleague at the
Speaker 1: Blaze um and uh. I think very highly of Dana
Speaker 1: and she did a uh an excellent job, particularly under
Speaker 1: the circumstance this last night, trying to just give the facts,
Speaker 1: I mean, make the case, yes, but also just keep
Speaker 1: the discussion based in reality. And you saw so much
Speaker 1: last night, didn't you. If you, if you didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance to watch it, you'll know enough for me
Speaker 1: talking about it. Really, I can't advocate you spend an
Speaker 1: hour of your time. It was. It was a gun
Speaker 1: control show trial. It was. It was the worst kind
Speaker 1: of media political theater. People assembled were rude, they were nasty,
Speaker 1: they were jeering. They even at one point called Dana
Speaker 1: a murderer. Let me answer the question. Let me answer
Speaker 1: the question. You can shout me down when I'm finished,
Speaker 1: but let me answer m this question. It is not
Speaker 1: federal law for state. And if you heard it there
Speaker 1: in the backgro someone and shouting out, you're a murderer.
Speaker 1: How is how is the spokesperson for a group that
Speaker 1: represents five million execut Amendment supporters a murderer? It's It's
Speaker 1: defies logic and sense and reason. It's just it's a slander.
Speaker 1: It's a slender. And yet if you watch what happened
Speaker 1: last night, you see that it was really instructive. Actually,
Speaker 1: it is something that was important for us to see
Speaker 1: because the way this goes is pretty straightforward. Um that
Speaker 1: they will they say they don't want to band guns. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a tragedy. They say they don't want to band guns.
Speaker 1: And then they say, come on, let's let's this is
Speaker 1: a tragedy. It's so sad. We want to defend the children.
Speaker 1: Let's be reasonable. Let's be reasonable. Okay, let's talk. And
Speaker 1: then that gets to talking, and it gets to the well,
Speaker 1: what works and what doesn't and what are we willing
Speaker 1: to what tradeoffs are we willing to make with regard
Speaker 1: to liberty and rights for possible security? And it quickly
Speaker 1: goes from be reasonable. Let's talk to Actually, we want
Speaker 1: to band guns, and you better agree with us or
Speaker 1: else here for child murder. It happens every time. It
Speaker 1: happens every times, right out of the playbook. Come on,
Speaker 1: just we we we just want solutions. We want solutions. Okay,
Speaker 1: that won't let's talk solutions that won't solve it. Oh
Speaker 1: you're you're in favor of child murder. It's despicable. It's despicable.
Speaker 1: The only difference this time around is that the media
Speaker 1: has students, both from the high school that suffered the
Speaker 1: terrible tragedy, but also students just more broadly, a student
Speaker 1: movement to be the vanguard of all of this, the
Speaker 1: student movement that gives them some degree of protection from criticism.
Speaker 1: That's the whole reason the mainstream media goes out there
Speaker 1: are victims, That's the whole reason they put them forward,
Speaker 1: because they want to advance policy ideas with the shield
Speaker 1: of victimhood in front of them. So you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to say, well, that's a bad idea, because then you're
Speaker 1: a bad person. And we saw this last night the
Speaker 1: mask dropped over at CNN. Although no one thinks that
Speaker 1: CNN is anything other than an an anti gun political
Speaker 1: action committee for all intents and purposes. Um. There are
Speaker 1: a few other things I wanted to know here, and
Speaker 1: one of them is that what we are seeing is
Speaker 1: the truth of the anti gun movement. What you saw
Speaker 1: last night in this CNN fiasco, UM, is that this
Speaker 1: is really a vicious and emotional topic because the left
Speaker 1: progressives have a disdain for the kind of people who
Speaker 1: own guns. This is cultural tribalism masquerading as urgent social policy.
Speaker 1: This is we we have to do this now. We
Speaker 1: have to do this now to save the children. Well,
Speaker 1: that won't save the children. You don't care about children,
Speaker 1: You evil, monstrous hillbilly who likes guns. That's the way
Speaker 1: the exchange goes. What happens each time we revisit this issue.
Speaker 1: But one of the differences now, as I said, is
Speaker 1: that there is a student movement that is being pushed
Speaker 1: forward by the meeting at the forefront of US. They're
Speaker 1: raising money, they are politically active. They're talking about a
Speaker 1: major march along the lines of the Women's March in
Speaker 1: d C. They want to have a march I think
Speaker 1: in the month of March, and they've named their movement.
Speaker 1: We haven't talked about that yet um. But they have
Speaker 1: a name for the movement, never again. We are told
Speaker 1: I saw a New Yorker piece that said that they
Speaker 1: call it never again because one of the students who
Speaker 1: was at the school just came up with that on
Speaker 1: his own. Possibly, it's also not an accident that that
Speaker 1: is the term that is being used. You'll notice You'll
Speaker 1: notice that with the two major named political movements of
Speaker 1: the anti Trump or the well the Trump administration, with
Speaker 1: the anti Trump era, one is the resistance or hashtag resistance,
Speaker 1: which is clearly supposed to link the efforts of the
Speaker 1: anti Trump left with the anti fascist efforts of the
Speaker 1: French underground during the Nazi occupation of France. That's why
Speaker 1: they call it the resistance or a lot of resistance
Speaker 1: or whatever, the resistance. That's why they chose the term.
Speaker 1: That's why hashtag resistance is the way that they brand themselves. Now.
Speaker 1: Never again is also not accidental. Never again generally has
Speaker 1: for most people, evokes the promise of never again after
Speaker 1: the Holocaust. In fact, never again, as a term which
Speaker 1: is generally associated with the Holocaust, first appeared or was
Speaker 1: first noted by the historian Raoul Hilberg, who said that
Speaker 1: after the bucin Vould concentration camp was liberated in April
Speaker 1: of n by US forces, one should note that there
Speaker 1: were handmade signs that the inmates there upon their release,
Speaker 1: created and put up never again, never again. That was
Speaker 1: at buck involved, and that was after the Nazi exteriment
Speaker 1: after the Second World War, which killed fifty million or
Speaker 1: so and eleven million exterminated in the death the death camps,
Speaker 1: six million of them Jews. So never again has a
Speaker 1: very powerful connotation. It's very powerful slogan, very powerful phrase
Speaker 1: with a deep, deep history attached to it, and that
Speaker 1: is why that it's been chosen now for this movement
Speaker 1: at this point in time. I will leave it to
Speaker 1: you to decide whether this is uh, you know, the
Speaker 1: calls to ban semiomatic rifles, or or whether the the
Speaker 1: n r A, which is supposed to be the enemy
Speaker 1: in this is somehow in any way, there's there's a
Speaker 1: there's a parallel the Nazi Germany here. It seems to
Speaker 1: me like that's this could be taken for um, this
Speaker 1: could be politicized in ways that are just damaging to
Speaker 1: any conversation, and that may in fact be the point right,
Speaker 1: any moral, decent person is immediately repulsed by and feels
Speaker 1: revulsion um when just thinking about the Holocaust. And in
Speaker 1: this case, yes, any decent, moral person is repulsed by
Speaker 1: a mass shooting at a school. But the way that
Speaker 1: the term will be applied is that this is the
Speaker 1: movement of never again with the moral authority of those
Speaker 1: who opposed the Holocaust. In this case, they're opposing school shootings.
Speaker 1: But if the n r A or anyone else stands
Speaker 1: against them, you see, then they're opposed to never again.
Speaker 1: If the n r A doesn't do what they say,
Speaker 1: then they're opposed to never again, which, as we know,
Speaker 1: evokes memories of and the thoughts of the Holocaust. And
Speaker 1: that is why it has been chosen. Um. Given that
Speaker 1: we're talking about gun control right now, I think it's
Speaker 1: important that we understand the terminology that everyone is using,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important that we understand the facts.
Speaker 1: So uh, we have seen what they really want here.
Speaker 1: Last night there was cheering. There was cheering even when
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio mentioned the possibility of or what would happen
Speaker 1: if you try to ban the air fifteen as you
Speaker 1: would ban semi automatic rifles across the board, cheering. They
Speaker 1: want that's what they really want to do. Oh, they
Speaker 1: cheer for that. There was booing when Danta last tried
Speaker 1: to be respectful and answer each one of their questions.
Speaker 1: You see, It's it's not that the Second Amendment side
Speaker 1: of this debate is unwilling to meet them on the
Speaker 1: battle field of ideas, so to speak. It's not that
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment side shirks away from any of this.
Speaker 1: Quite the contrary. It's that we are faced within emotional
Speaker 1: movement that does not really particularly care all that much
Speaker 1: about what the facts are of the pole sees that
Speaker 1: they promote and the things they want. They just know
Speaker 1: it feels right. It must be right because hashtag never again.
Speaker 1: Kevin Williamson over at National Review wrote the following I
Speaker 1: thought this really got to the heart of this point
Speaker 1: today quote. Our progressive friends enjoy boasting of their purportedly
Speaker 1: evidence based approach to social problems, but when it comes
Speaker 1: to firearms, it is pure culture camp for cultural culture fight. Firearms,
Speaker 1: in their view, are an atavistic enthusiasm for rural primitives
Speaker 1: and right wing militia nuts, a hobby that must be
Speaker 1: tolerated if only barely because of some vestigial eighteenth century
Speaker 1: political compromise. That's really how the left us gun control.
Speaker 1: That's really how the left use the Second Amendment. I've
Speaker 1: been saying it to you for quite some time here,
Speaker 1: and that that scene informed last night. We saw it.
Speaker 1: We had adults being snied and dismissive and and hateful
Speaker 1: toward individuals who literally are there to have a conversation
Speaker 1: with them about this. I will also note that when
Speaker 1: you compare the listening session that President Trump had at
Speaker 1: the White House with that CNN forum last night, As
Speaker 1: I've been telling you, one side of this issue at
Speaker 1: least wants to discuss it and be serious about it.
Speaker 1: The other wants to make it into a food fight,
Speaker 1: wants to turn this into some kind of royal rumble
Speaker 1: where everyone gets to just beat up on the big
Speaker 1: bad and r A. We will talk a bit more
Speaker 1: about where the policy stands. The Trump administration is saying
Speaker 1: that stuff is gonna happen, and there's more they've added today.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's something they just talked about right before
Speaker 1: we came on air. I'm seeing here, so this is
Speaker 1: not gonna be we just move on and forget about this.
Speaker 1: I think we're heading for some changes here. We should
Speaker 1: talk about what those maybe and what it will mean
Speaker 1: if they are in fact enacted. UM, that's all coming up,
Speaker 1: so stay with me. I have an appalling update for
Speaker 1: all of you. UM, I have I have breaking news here.
Speaker 1: Literally just hit just hit the Washington Post as we
Speaker 1: are on air, and I was just talking to guys
Speaker 1: about this in here, and we are just jaws on
Speaker 1: the ground. You have got to be kidding me. The
Speaker 1: armed sheriff's deputy who was on the grounds of the
Speaker 1: Marjorie Douglas High School shooting went and occurred, took up
Speaker 1: a position outside the school, and never when inside. You've
Speaker 1: got to be kidding me. The armed sheriff's deputy new
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens of rounds fired, one after another, reload reload, minutes,
Speaker 1: passing defensive position, armed, never went inside the building. OK.
Speaker 1: Cowardice isn't just on the battlefields, my friends. Sometimes cowardice
Speaker 1: can happen here at home to right. Sometimes people just
Speaker 1: don't have it in him. I don't know what to say.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say. Uh as is just
Speaker 1: how much worse can it get? From the law enforcement experience.
Speaker 1: How much worse is it gonna get. Look, I've I've
Speaker 1: got career law enforcement in my family, as you know,
Speaker 1: I spent did a toward the n y P. I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm not trying to beat up on law enforcement
Speaker 1: in general here, but in this case, in this instance,
Speaker 1: FBI doesn't follow up on the tip. They had to
Speaker 1: apologize today local law enforcement. That sheriff last night at
Speaker 1: the CNN for him pouncing on the n r A
Speaker 1: all over Dana Lash. She's a politician. He was calling
Speaker 1: for gun control right away. Didn't have any answers for
Speaker 1: the dozens of calls that were made to police. They
Speaker 1: showed up. And now we find out that the armed
Speaker 1: resource officer at the Marjorie Douglas High School took a
Speaker 1: quote defensive position outside and never went inside the frigging
Speaker 1: building while kids were getting massacred inside. And he had
Speaker 1: to know, bang bang bang, he's outside, Okay, adrenaline, bang bang,
Speaker 1: he's outside, Okay, they're kids inside. People are dying, people
Speaker 1: losing their lives, people are bleeding out. Maybe freezes for
Speaker 1: ten seconds, maybe freeze or fifteen. That's ten or fifteen,
Speaker 1: a lot longer than any of us any of us
Speaker 1: would want. But look, we're all human, right. Three minutes.
Speaker 1: Three minutes never went inside the building. I didn't think, hey,
Speaker 1: I've got this gun for a reason. I didn't think, hey,
Speaker 1: there are going to be dozens of kids who never
Speaker 1: see their parents again unless I actually go and take action.
Speaker 1: They were holding this by the way, they had to be.
Speaker 1: They were holding this information. They had to wait until
Speaker 1: the narratives were in place, and to wait until a
Speaker 1: few days week and past. Because my god, what are
Speaker 1: we to make of this? FBI apologizing for a massive
Speaker 1: foul up. Local law enforcement looking in this case, inept,
Speaker 1: incapable of doing anything, couldn't have had more tips, more
Speaker 1: red flags about the shooter, and then during the actual shooting,
Speaker 1: During the actual shooting, this this guy never went inside.
Speaker 1: Sheriff Israel suspended school resource deputy Scott Peterson on Thursday
Speaker 1: after seeing a video from the park Land, Florida school
Speaker 1: that showed Peterson outside the school building where the shooter
Speaker 1: was inside and attacking. Quote. What I saw was a
Speaker 1: deputy arrived at the west side of Building twelve, take
Speaker 1: up a position and never went in. Sheriff is Reel said,
Speaker 1: Folks not that the deputy went in late. It's not
Speaker 1: that the deputy froze for a moment, never went inside
Speaker 1: the building. By the way, it might also be why
Speaker 1: the shooter, cruise was found a mile from the school,
Speaker 1: was able to walk away, almost got away. We've got
Speaker 1: to talk more about this. Stay with me. So we're
Speaker 1: just dealing with the breaking news here that happened while
Speaker 1: we're on air that the armed deputy at the school
Speaker 1: did nothing while the slaughter happened inside. Marjorie Douglas hi
Speaker 1: waited outside, just didn't didn't do anything, and they saw
Speaker 1: it on video and they have it on video. Wow.
Speaker 1: You know one thing that we've seen here in this
Speaker 1: whole terrible situation is that this has been this shooting
Speaker 1: in Florida has shown it. It's it's massive failure of
Speaker 1: the state police and FBI in this case. And this
Speaker 1: armed resources officer I guess, deputized by the Sheriff's department,
Speaker 1: and yet the response from so many people is to
Speaker 1: just increase the role of the state at the expense
Speaker 1: of the individual. This is where you see that big
Speaker 1: philosophical difference. This is failure at so many levels. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, I'm just I'm shocked. I assumed that
Speaker 1: the armed resource officer, big school, big campus was uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I just I just assumed was in another building, maybe
Speaker 1: didn't even hear the first few gunshots. By the time
Speaker 1: he got there, it was all over and it was
Speaker 1: a blood bath. And you know, it's just terrible timing.
Speaker 1: I didn't think was there now was there thirty seconds
Speaker 1: into the three minutes of killing? Was there? You know?
Speaker 1: But from the video and from the description of it,
Speaker 1: he was. He took a defensive position while the shoot,
Speaker 1: while the gunfire was still going on inside the building,
Speaker 1: and we lost seventeen young men and women that day.
Speaker 1: We could have lost a hundred. Right, You're the one
Speaker 1: person there, you know. I know it's it's a lot
Speaker 1: easier to profess how brave one would be under the
Speaker 1: circumstances than to actually be that person. But this is
Speaker 1: not this is not a close call. You are there,
Speaker 1: one hope, there one possible good guy with a gun
Speaker 1: on the scene, and you're you're not even gonna go
Speaker 1: in the building. It's also complicates the discussion. I know
Speaker 1: people are gonna say it shouldn't this is just the
Speaker 1: actions of one person. But it seems that the most
Speaker 1: favored policy outcome from the White House and the and
Speaker 1: the Republicans, or at least from the White House, is
Speaker 1: to armed teachers and or armed individuals within the schools right,
Speaker 1: give people the proper training. And this was somebody with
Speaker 1: the training and the mandate to protect students on the campus.
Speaker 1: Not only did it not protect them, did nothing, did nothing.
Speaker 1: I can I already see it. I see it on
Speaker 1: CNN right now. They are they're already running Trump's comments
Speaker 1: about how attacks would end if you armed trained teachers.
Speaker 1: This is this is now. This is incredible the way
Speaker 1: the media does this. And it's really happening in real
Speaker 1: time right now, because the story just broke front page
Speaker 1: of the Washkin Post while I was on air with you.
Speaker 1: It just happened out. No, no one, not on the
Speaker 1: other shows have known about this today because it wasn't released,
Speaker 1: It wasn't yet out of the news. What you're seeing
Speaker 1: is the cowardice of this one individual or who's fired
Speaker 1: from his or resigned I should say suspended, and then
Speaker 1: he resigned so as not to be fired. So law
Speaker 1: and it's not like law enforcements circling this guy, circling
Speaker 1: around this guy and saying you know, hey, hey, you
Speaker 1: know this followed protocol toughs into that. They they're like,
Speaker 1: he's gone. That is being used as a way of
Speaker 1: undermining the White House's position on training people and arming them.
Speaker 1: That's what this turns into right away. This one guy
Speaker 1: did not do and look at gonna haunt in the
Speaker 1: rest of his life. And obviously we all know this.
Speaker 1: So but this one individual refused to answer the call
Speaker 1: and it was his obligation to do so. And yet
Speaker 1: now it's already turning into a the media pivot is
Speaker 1: because he did nothing, no one else in a similar
Speaker 1: circumstance would do something. Therefore, the White House's position on
Speaker 1: this is foolish. The White Houses moved to push for
Speaker 1: greater teaching of firearms instruction and tactics to people in schools,
Speaker 1: concealed carry, more armed resource officer, all all those things.
Speaker 1: We haven't yet gotten down in the specifics of how
Speaker 1: it would be rolled out. But it's being used to
Speaker 1: undermine that. Well, I look at that. Oh, a sheriff
Speaker 1: Israel who was at that last night, was at the
Speaker 1: forum with Dana ash and Marco Rubio. Uh, he knew
Speaker 1: about this. They were keeping this one. They were keeping
Speaker 1: this one quiet. They had to wait for the you know,
Speaker 1: they had to wait for things to get in place
Speaker 1: before anyone knew about this. It's it's pretty remarkable actually
Speaker 1: when you think about it, that we had heard so
Speaker 1: little about the school resources officer. We hadn't really heard
Speaker 1: ruiser might did we know? We just knew there was
Speaker 1: one on campus, right, There was nothing beyond that, there
Speaker 1: was no nothing. And this has been the biggest news
Speaker 1: story in the country now for a week. And somehow
Speaker 1: this was kept entirely under wraps u something. Something doesn't
Speaker 1: wash for me with all that in terms of just
Speaker 1: how this wasn't known or didn't no one. No one
Speaker 1: in the media knew this until today. Let's find that
Speaker 1: hard to believe. No one was asking questions and getting
Speaker 1: a weird feeling when the sheriff wasn't given the answers
Speaker 1: about where was your armed resources deputy? Hmm? What do
Speaker 1: you think about this? Is this going to change? Does
Speaker 1: it change at all your sense of whether arming teachers
Speaker 1: or arming faculty school personnel, either in a concealed carry
Speaker 1: capacity or you know, in an open carry official armed
Speaker 1: officer capacity. Do you think that that's still the way
Speaker 1: to go. Does it change? You're thinking at all about
Speaker 1: any of this? You think it's going to change? The
Speaker 1: White House is thinking. I'm this was quite an addition
Speaker 1: into the discussion here. I obviously didn't know we're gonna
Speaker 1: be talking about this at all. Eight four four to five,
Speaker 1: eight four nine hundred buck team. I want to hear
Speaker 1: from you on this, so let me know and we'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Start looking at how easy it is
Speaker 1: to get around it. You would literally have a band
Speaker 1: every semi automatic rifle. Fair enough, I sing out of
Speaker 1: thousands of people cheering ban every semi automatic rifle and
Speaker 1: r A took a lot of heat last night at
Speaker 1: that CNN for him. Marco Rubio took a lot of
Speaker 1: heat last night and Dana last two although didn't didn't
Speaker 1: bother Dana one bit, although she did say that somebody
Speaker 1: yelled out burn her, which is horrific. You know, Dana
Speaker 1: is a person, is a nice person. It's a wife, mom.
Speaker 1: Someone's yelling burning her. I don't care what the crowd
Speaker 1: there thinks that their movement is all about and everything.
Speaker 1: Oh you don't yell burn her at a stranger. You
Speaker 1: don't yell murderer to somebody who's literally done nothing. I
Speaker 1: figured this wouldn't happen, and we've got every single line.
Speaker 1: Lets let's get into this. Um Uh, David and Mississippi
Speaker 1: welcome to Freedom of David. What do you think, hey,
Speaker 1: I think uh, I think the timing just sucks. Buck.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy was on cn and My night
Speaker 1: talking about how we should ban you know, all the
Speaker 1: a R fifteens. I think this just says that he's
Speaker 1: a coward. Because clearly his deputy was a coward. We
Speaker 1: had a school full of brave teachers and coaches who
Speaker 1: took bullets. They were brave. He was the coward. And
Speaker 1: I would say this that the sheriff is a coward too.
Speaker 1: And you know clearly, you know, if his deputy is
Speaker 1: a coward, he must have learned from the sheriff. How
Speaker 1: could that? I mean, just if if you haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: I mean, you go back that as sheriff is reel.
Speaker 1: Uh was so smug last night on stage, I mean
Speaker 1: just lecturing the n r A, lecturing America, and his
Speaker 1: department fell down on the job so in so many ways.
Speaker 1: And now we find this out and he knew he
Speaker 1: was lecturing the country, and he was talking about gun
Speaker 1: control and acting like he's Mr. I was in law
Speaker 1: enforcement thirty years. I know what to do here. Well,
Speaker 1: didn't know how to train his deputy apparently. Yeah, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling in, and I appreciate it. Uh. Mike
Speaker 1: in Danbury, Connecticut, Hey Mike, Yeah, okay, and listen, this
Speaker 1: is this is smelling more Las Vegas. On my unknown
Speaker 1: questions if the character was outside, there were two people
Speaker 1: I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that were killed
Speaker 1: outside the school. Whether they were students or what, I
Speaker 1: don't remember. Yeah, some people were killed outside. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The day of the tragedy, the sheriff said that the
Speaker 1: guy was out round of the golf cart someplace else.
Speaker 1: He was far from the school. He wasn't near the school.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that, he said. He really he misled
Speaker 1: the public on the on the I'd have to check
Speaker 1: on that, but if that's true, that's particularly egregious. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I I'd have to have to go back
Speaker 1: and second that too. But I remember clearly the watching
Speaker 1: him in the live news conference that day saying that
Speaker 1: the you know, this guard was was off someplace, off
Speaker 1: on his cart and the The other thing is if
Speaker 1: this guy is on video outside that school and there's
Speaker 1: two bodies out there, did he call headquarters or did
Speaker 1: somebody from inside the school called nine one? One good question?
Speaker 1: You know. That's all I can tell you is that
Speaker 1: right now, the headline the Washington the headline you're seeing
Speaker 1: splashed all over the media is did quote nothing, which
Speaker 1: to me sounds like maybe he just crouched down outside
Speaker 1: the building. And you know, I'm assuming he pulled his
Speaker 1: weapon but didn't do anything. Yeah, you know, but there's
Speaker 1: now there's more questions all of a sudden, what the
Speaker 1: hell's going on here? And the media is going to
Speaker 1: stay on with the kids who are are rightfully grieving
Speaker 1: and everything else and all this other stuff. But let's
Speaker 1: come back to some basic tactical questions here. You know,
Speaker 1: are the police and those people really prepared in case
Speaker 1: there's something happening in the school? You know, did somebody
Speaker 1: profile this, this policeman, this guard outs I had to
Speaker 1: see if in fact he would do something. People gave
Speaker 1: me a lot of people gave me a rough time,
Speaker 1: including friends of mine from the law enforcing community when
Speaker 1: I talked about this. But you know, the Pulse nightclub shooting.
Speaker 1: They had they had officers, multiple officers with long guns
Speaker 1: on the scene within minutes. And originally there was this
Speaker 1: story about how you know there was a bomb inside,
Speaker 1: but that actually wasn't true. They didn't think there was
Speaker 1: a bomb till later and the shooting was still ongoing.
Speaker 1: With what it was was effectively, uh, you know officers.
Speaker 1: I think there were five or six of them with
Speaker 1: with a RS and body armor on the scene and
Speaker 1: they waited outside. I said, look, I wasn't there, and
Speaker 1: if that's protocol, then we need to discuss this. But
Speaker 1: it seemed to me like if people are bleeding out
Speaker 1: and they're still active shooting going on, you can't just
Speaker 1: set up a perimeter and say, you know, we're gonna
Speaker 1: see how we're gonna see what happens when backup gets here. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, people got mad at me with that,
Speaker 1: But I had I had other law enforcement. I had
Speaker 1: had people who were in decades and squad who are like, no,
Speaker 1: they should have gone in. So you know, with this case,
Speaker 1: it's just one guy and it's all writing on him
Speaker 1: and his you know, oh gosh, I don't know his
Speaker 1: his cowardice here they have cost lives. I don't know
Speaker 1: how else to say it. And that's why the President
Speaker 1: when he said, you know, special training, that's what he's
Speaker 1: talking about. You know, you profile and say, okay, is
Speaker 1: this person qualified technically and is he prepared psychologically? Military
Speaker 1: people obviously are, and but this guard was the ending
Speaker 1: that time, and then if he hit behind the bushes
Speaker 1: and all this going on, it really says that the
Speaker 1: department itself was not prepared. Jeff Israel is great at
Speaker 1: calling for gun control. Mike, thanks for calling it from Connecticut. Man,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Jerry in Greensboro, North Carolina. Hey, Jerry,
Speaker 1: Hey man, I appreciate you taking a call. Thank you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to say, you know, I'm in law
Speaker 1: enforce myself, and I know it's just it really, uh
Speaker 1: turns my gut to think that somebody would have not
Speaker 1: went in when they carry the bat as and and
Speaker 1: try to take care of the situation. You know, they
Speaker 1: trained us that, you know, when something like this happens,
Speaker 1: you don't wait for us. You go in and you
Speaker 1: deal with what's going on. And uh, I just was
Speaker 1: I was thinking that, you know, and not talking trash
Speaker 1: about anybody but sometimes some of these school resource officers
Speaker 1: that are put into place, they're put there for a
Speaker 1: reason and they're not out on the street every day.
Speaker 1: And you know, I hate to say it like that,
Speaker 1: but and Jerry, look, they're not you know, they're not
Speaker 1: you know officers in in cities that have a you know,
Speaker 1: a real I mean, look, I I had a family
Speaker 1: I had a family member who was lap D and
Speaker 1: a family member who worked, uh, you know for well.
Speaker 1: I won't get into all of it, but there's a
Speaker 1: real spree to corps that's a part of some of
Speaker 1: you know, the major law enforce and organizations across the country.
Speaker 1: There's a real spree to corps at a well run
Speaker 1: sheriff's department, a well run local p D, and you
Speaker 1: know some guy who's kind of out there by himself.
Speaker 1: I don't really know how this works, but yea, at
Speaker 1: some level, you know, if somebody's amall cop, you're not
Speaker 1: gonna expect them to be able to leap into action
Speaker 1: like a guy who's been doing squad for a decade, right,
Speaker 1: And that's yeah. And they told us in patrol school, Hey,
Speaker 1: there's those that are meant to call the police, and
Speaker 1: those that are meant to be the police, and some
Speaker 1: people just they just don't have it in them, you know.
Speaker 1: And we got to be able to weed those folks
Speaker 1: out and say, hey, you just if you're not gonna
Speaker 1: make it, then we can't put you in a school
Speaker 1: to protect our children. Yeah. Well, because obviously, as you
Speaker 1: well know as a law enforcement officer yourself, Jerry, in
Speaker 1: this case, you've got a guy here who the the
Speaker 1: assumption and the obligation is he is the armed person
Speaker 1: on campus for this very unlikely eventuality. But it did happen, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, and he has to be the guy, and
Speaker 1: that he didn't go in. It's just it just adds
Speaker 1: so much. There's just been so much in competence and
Speaker 1: and just failure, failure after failure of authorities leading up
Speaker 1: to this. But Jerry, hey, thank you for what you do. Man.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, thank you for your perspective, and just man,
Speaker 1: it's a gut punch, I really. I mean, the guys
Speaker 1: were with me when I read that. I just couldn't
Speaker 1: believe it. You gotta add that into the mix here too.
Speaker 1: That didn't stop it. FBI didn't follow up on the tip.
Speaker 1: FBI couldn't figure out you know in true name? You know,
Speaker 1: I mean, the FBI can find Russians who are operating
Speaker 1: out of an office building in St. Petersburg, who are
Speaker 1: setting up fake social media accounts and get us all
Speaker 1: that info, but didn't want to track down the I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be a professional school shooter in true name, which
Speaker 1: keep in mind, if they had looked up the name
Speaker 1: and looked at all these other pieces would have been
Speaker 1: quite clear they had a real problem on their hands.
Speaker 1: Richard in a Gulfport, Mississippi hair Richard, thank you for
Speaker 1: taking my call. Thank you. I would like to point
Speaker 1: out that all of this from the FBI is so
Speaker 1: called incompetence, all the way down to the sheriff's department
Speaker 1: after they've been called of the guy's house. What was
Speaker 1: at thirty nine times? The FBI keeps records on who
Speaker 1: buys guns, so they knew about the A R fifteen.
Speaker 1: Nobody seemed to do anything, Nobody seemed to pay any attention,
Speaker 1: and I firmly believe they knew all about this guy. Now,
Speaker 1: I will point out that as soon as the shooting
Speaker 1: was over, the scripts were written. The people that were
Speaker 1: going to do the talking. We're already ready to go.
Speaker 1: The buses were rented, new buses, the whole plan of
Speaker 1: action was laid out, and it was like in twenty
Speaker 1: four hours, which leads me to believe this was nothing
Speaker 1: but a set up to try to take in the way,
Speaker 1: to try to do away with a second Amendment. Richard, I,
Speaker 1: I it's I gotta disagree with you. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's not a conspiracy here in front of the event.
Speaker 1: I think that afterwards there's a lot that's going on
Speaker 1: here that we've been talking about. But I don't think
Speaker 1: that this was I don't think that this was orchestrated.
Speaker 1: I gotta leave I gotta leave it there for now.
Speaker 1: It's going to hard break, but I I have to
Speaker 1: I have to strongly disagree on that point. But I
Speaker 1: appreciate perspectives here on the show, even when I think
Speaker 1: they're wrong. Um, we are going to roll in a break.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about this and also get into some
Speaker 1: Russia collusion and whatnot, and then we'll talk immigration third hour.
Speaker 1: So stick around. The n r A is ready to
Speaker 1: do things, and you know, people like to blame them,
Speaker 1: and they do have power and all of that, but
Speaker 1: they want to do that. They want to They actually
Speaker 1: came up with, uh certain of the rules and regulations
Speaker 1: that we have now, but we're gonna have to tough
Speaker 1: And I told them, I said, we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: toughen them up because it doesn't make anybody look good.
Speaker 1: And most importantly, I saw the devastation of these families.
Speaker 1: We can't allow that to happen. General John Kelly, so
Speaker 1: he's a four star Marine, he's a tough cookie. So
Speaker 1: if he's a teacher, and of other friends of his
Speaker 1: from the marine, if they're teaching or other people like that,
Speaker 1: I want them to have a gun. But more importantly,
Speaker 1: nobody's going to attack that school because they know General
Speaker 1: Kelly is the history teacher. He's teaching about how we
Speaker 1: win wars, okay, and he's got a concealed weapon. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna know he's got to concer because we tell
Speaker 1: them that the bullets are gonna be flying in the
Speaker 1: other direction. You're not gonna have these attacks if you
Speaker 1: do that. Welcome to our two of the buck Sexton Shoe. Everyone,
Speaker 1: So we are dealing with the new information breaking news
Speaker 1: from the last hour that the Sheriff's deputy at the
Speaker 1: Marjorie Douglas scho Woll did nothing during the shooting. There
Speaker 1: you at President Trump earlier the day talking about what
Speaker 1: has become the primary response policy response preferred by this
Speaker 1: White House to the school shooting, which would be to
Speaker 1: armed teachers. And now already I'm sitting here on CNN
Speaker 1: at the bottom of the bottom third of the screen,
Speaker 1: Trump calls for arming some teachers. Sheriff reveals an armed
Speaker 1: deputy at school did nothing during shooting. See in real time,
Speaker 1: they are turning this new information into a critique of
Speaker 1: the administration's policy. Sheriff Israel knew last night at the
Speaker 1: CNN forum that his deputy did nothing, and he was
Speaker 1: just full of all kinds of gun grabbing, antisecond amment
Speaker 1: ideas to deal with this very very grandstanding Jariff Israel
Speaker 1: last night and now here we are looking at this
Speaker 1: new information. This is what the left is gonna do.
Speaker 1: They're gonna say, forget about army teachers, it means and
Speaker 1: what they teachers faculty, anyone can still carry armed resource officers.
Speaker 1: They're going to say that this incident shows because this
Speaker 1: one deputy didn't do anything, that's not a that's not
Speaker 1: an action that can be taken to try to make
Speaker 1: our schools safer. Now, a lot of you would say, well,
Speaker 1: just because somebody doesn't do the job doesn't mean somebody
Speaker 1: else wouldn't do the job. And we shouldn't base policy
Speaker 1: on the actions of one incompetent coward. Right, That's not
Speaker 1: the way we should view But that's the way this
Speaker 1: is going to go politically. This is how the conversation
Speaker 1: will go. You're already hearing a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of people just pushing down this idea, saying that putting
Speaker 1: down this idea of saying that it was going nowhere.
Speaker 1: Here's a earlier in the day before we even knew
Speaker 1: about the the deputy. Here's what a teacher at CNA
Speaker 1: on CNN said about Trump's proposal. Diana, Diana, No, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: That that's just ridiculous and have felt more safe. You
Speaker 1: wouldn't have felt more safe if you had been armed.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm just asking that's the president's propose. It
Speaker 1: would have been more mayhem. It would have been more mayhem. No,
Speaker 1: the teachers got into this. To teacher, I'm in my
Speaker 1: twentieth year with Broward's schools guns that did not come
Speaker 1: into my head when I went to study to be
Speaker 1: a library media specialist. That's just ridiculous. Come on, we
Speaker 1: we have we have a sergeant there at our school.
Speaker 1: It didn't stopped the shooter. He was there, he was
Speaker 1: not afraid that we had someone that was armed. Come on, No, No,
Speaker 1: Now that that teacher looks she's titled her opinion, I
Speaker 1: understand and respect that. That's fine. No one is saying
Speaker 1: that every teacher has to be armed. No one saying
Speaker 1: that teachers that don't want to be armed should be armed.
Speaker 1: The issue here would be should there at least be
Speaker 1: an option for schools to have concealed Remember, schools are
Speaker 1: gunn free zones. So unless you are deputized, unless you
Speaker 1: are a resources officer for the Sheriff's department or the
Speaker 1: local PD or whatever, you can't just be a person,
Speaker 1: a private citizen who works or for that man. Ever.
Speaker 1: Talking about colleges for example, you know you could be
Speaker 1: a student, uh who works there and wants to carry
Speaker 1: to be safer. But they're making seem like, oh, they're
Speaker 1: just gonna force everyone to be walking around. You know,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have librarians carrying m fors with EO TEX sites.
Speaker 1: It's just a matter of time. Like, no one's saying that,
Speaker 1: but the implication is that this is what we're gonna
Speaker 1: turn all of the Yeah, ethel the lunch lady is
Speaker 1: going to turn into dirty Harry or something here. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not what the policy is supposed to be.
Speaker 1: So they don't need to ask somebody was literally saying
Speaker 1: she studied librarian services or whatever. Though I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: some librarians that enjoy their Second Amendment rights too, But
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, she's not the person that they're necessarily
Speaker 1: going to say you should be the concealed carry permit
Speaker 1: holder on this campus in the event of I just
Speaker 1: I look, I don't do conspiracies here. You know that.
Speaker 1: And I you know, I'd never like to be uh,
Speaker 1: dismissive or or snappy or snippy with any of our
Speaker 1: snappy pardoner with snappy dresser, snippy with any of our callers.
Speaker 1: But I also have to keep it in the realm
Speaker 1: of reality here. And if I think a conspiracy is
Speaker 1: way too far off, I'll tell you, and I'll try
Speaker 1: to do so to the anyone who forwards one as
Speaker 1: respectfully as I can. That's said. Maybe I'm going off
Speaker 1: the rail us here right now, because I do not
Speaker 1: believe that no one knew that the sheriff's deput that
Speaker 1: that this whole week past, and no one in the media,
Speaker 1: no one in the policy circles knew that the sheriff's
Speaker 1: deputy didn't do anything. Obviously a lot of it I
Speaker 1: didn't know, a lot of us didn't know. And I
Speaker 1: don't believe that this was this ironclad secret. And uh,
Speaker 1: I just have I have a hard time with that.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know what to make other other
Speaker 1: than just to tell you that to me, it seems
Speaker 1: it seems very uh, it seems very unlikely. You had
Speaker 1: the Broward County school superintendent also talking about giving teachers
Speaker 1: guns in his opposition to it. Some of the dialogue
Speaker 1: that I've heard recently is about army teachers. We don't
Speaker 1: need to put guns at the hands of teachers. Do
Speaker 1: you know what we need? We need to arm our
Speaker 1: teachers with more money in their pocket. Let teacher comp
Speaker 1: station benefits at working conditions be part of this national
Speaker 1: debate as well. I mean, you want to talk about
Speaker 1: shameless here's the guy's basically, yeah, we need to keep
Speaker 1: our kids safe from school shootings, which means more teacher
Speaker 1: over time, because that will prevent shootings somehow. And that
Speaker 1: was pretty breathtaking, wasn't it. We need to have a
Speaker 1: talk about teacher compensation now, now is the time to
Speaker 1: talk about paying teachers. No, No, that was not the
Speaker 1: time to talking about raising teacher wages. I mean, this
Speaker 1: has become very politicized in so many different ways, so
Speaker 1: many different ways, and it's uh gross. You'd think that
Speaker 1: we could all come together on this and see this
Speaker 1: from the perspective of just doing what's best. I know,
Speaker 1: this is a phrase is that you hear and a
Speaker 1: lot of people roll their eyes, but you know, do
Speaker 1: what's best for the children. That's what we would like
Speaker 1: to do, like keep our kids safe. We all want
Speaker 1: the same thing. We all want school shootings, and we
Speaker 1: all want children to be safe when they're in school,
Speaker 1: and you know, young adults and people on college campuses.
Speaker 1: Everyone to be safe. But you know, it doesn't help
Speaker 1: the victory. All the nastiness, the tribalism, the sense that
Speaker 1: the real enemy is the n r A. The real
Speaker 1: enemy are people who speak in favor of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: You know, they're saying that while there is a bigger
Speaker 1: opening now for Second Amendment defenders and advocates than I
Speaker 1: have seen in my adult lifetime. Uh, there's a bigger
Speaker 1: opening now for some kind of compromise or action to
Speaker 1: be taken, and yet you still have a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of nastiness. In fact, Uh, Dana La, who was at
Speaker 1: the CNN form last night, said, I mentioned this before,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to hear from her that. You know,
Speaker 1: she she was worried about getting out of there safely.
Speaker 1: You heard that town hall last night. They cheered the
Speaker 1: confiscation of firearms and it was over five thousand people.
Speaker 1: I had to have a security detail to get out.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been able to exit that if I
Speaker 1: did not have a private security detail. There were people
Speaker 1: rushing the stage and screaming burn her. And I came
Speaker 1: there to talk solutions, and I still I am going
Speaker 1: to continue that conversation on solutions, as the NR has
Speaker 1: been doing for before I was alive. So we're talking solutions,
Speaker 1: and yet people are saying burn her and calling her
Speaker 1: a murderer and all kinds of just and by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not okay. It's not okay if you
Speaker 1: were a student in that high school to call someone
Speaker 1: a murderer who did nothing wrong. It's not okay to
Speaker 1: yell for violence at a public form and televised discussion
Speaker 1: like that. And it's just there's no excuse. It was
Speaker 1: happening a lot who and then there's the booing and
Speaker 1: the hissing and the shouting and all the other stuff
Speaker 1: that was going on there. It was interesting to see
Speaker 1: that CNN doesn't even pretend I think it was what
Speaker 1: was it a week or two ago? I told you
Speaker 1: I would have been last week and last week that
Speaker 1: I knew someone who was invited to speak at at
Speaker 1: another form after Newtown CNN, and they sat without telling
Speaker 1: the person he was supposed to be a second amate defender.
Speaker 1: They sat him in uh literally surrounded by the parents
Speaker 1: of those who had lost children at Newtown, and they
Speaker 1: would ask him to stand up in that circumstance and
Speaker 1: be the guy who's defending the Second Amendment in the
Speaker 1: n r A. Now, a lot of you would say, well,
Speaker 1: the argument is the argument. It doesn't matter if he's around. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I understand that, but clearly it was orchestrated to make
Speaker 1: him as uncomfortable as possible, to make the emotions of
Speaker 1: the moment as difficult as Paul civil. And that's just
Speaker 1: the way they do things over there. So why I
Speaker 1: left and never looked back. Uh anyway, And I know
Speaker 1: a lot of your thoughts on this to wait, do
Speaker 1: we have some of Uh, well, we'll we'll come back.
Speaker 1: We've got some updates from Sheriff Israel, whose deputy just
Speaker 1: waited outside while his terrible shooting was going on. Um,
Speaker 1: I you know, I would offer to you that not
Speaker 1: only do what I expect that anyone who has charged
Speaker 1: with as their you know, as part of their job,
Speaker 1: their obligation, they would go in and try to help
Speaker 1: and try to save children and yeah, and take a
Speaker 1: risk that there would be a risk. But I think
Speaker 1: any if you walk down the street and you had
Speaker 1: a vast majority of able bodied a Americans, if you said,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna give you a side arm,
Speaker 1: and you're in that situation and you know there's a
Speaker 1: school and his kids and there's gunfire, I just think
Speaker 1: a vast majority of people would would say, you know,
Speaker 1: got gotta do something. I gotta do something, oh man,
Speaker 1: rough stuff. Eight four to five, eight four nine buck.
Speaker 1: We'll we'll have that statement from Sheriff Israel, who's been
Speaker 1: very chatty, very chatty about gun control. Let's see what
Speaker 1: it is to say about what happened that day. Now
Speaker 1: that we have more information, we'll be back with that
Speaker 1: more Stay with me. We're not going to disclose the
Speaker 1: video at this time, and we may never disclose the
Speaker 1: video depending on the prosecution and the criminal case. But
Speaker 1: what I saw was a deputy arrive at the west
Speaker 1: side of Building twelve take up a position, and he
Speaker 1: never went in. He never went in. Folks, let me
Speaker 1: tell you something. That video Actually, we're gonna see it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna they're they're gonna hold onto it for as
Speaker 1: long as they can. Uh. I never advocate for this
Speaker 1: kind of thing at all, But you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to allude to that or anything.
Speaker 1: But I this guy who did not go in, I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's going to They're gonna be safety concerns for him.
Speaker 1: So that's a legitimate safety concerns for I think that
Speaker 1: the I think that they're worried about letting the video
Speaker 1: out for the time being, maybe they'll get a judge
Speaker 1: under that for or for that reason to withhold this
Speaker 1: from the public. But I don't know. I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see this video and it's gonna be bad. You
Speaker 1: can be sure of that. If this was a close call.
Speaker 1: You heard that, you're the sheriff there. Now that now
Speaker 1: that it's out right, now that we're not the video,
Speaker 1: but the facts of this, the description of what was
Speaker 1: in that video now we know. So just so we're
Speaker 1: all on the same page here, the FBI dropped the ball.
Speaker 1: Local law enforcement dropped the ball. The security feed twenty
Speaker 1: minutes delayed in the school also was so messed up
Speaker 1: technologically that it made it hard for them to figure
Speaker 1: out who the shooter was and find him more quickly
Speaker 1: after the shooting. And then the sheriff's deputy just waited
Speaker 1: outside did nothing. But as many are saying, yeah, but
Speaker 1: the n R the n R A is is the
Speaker 1: problem here. That's what do we have? Do We have
Speaker 1: the sheriff from last night, By the way, play the
Speaker 1: sheriff from last night. This is this is what he
Speaker 1: was sounding like last night. First and responsible is the
Speaker 1: agent or the detective or the person who received a
Speaker 1: tip and didn't exercise the dude dill legence and took
Speaker 1: it where they needed to be. All that being said,
Speaker 1: when I'm asking the law makes to give police all
Speaker 1: over this country is more power. So he's beating up
Speaker 1: on the FBI. There's the sheriff. W I think I've
Speaker 1: heard is like a friend of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is
Speaker 1: by the way, I think I've heard that. I think
Speaker 1: that maybe that may not be true. Maybe somebody's meant that,
Speaker 1: like in the metaphorical sense of a friend of Debbie
Speaker 1: Wasserman Schultze is as he's a left winger. But uh,
Speaker 1: the sheriff's beating up on the FBI and local law
Speaker 1: enforcement showed up at this guy's house has got dozens
Speaker 1: of calls involved with him. Right, the FBI missed an
Speaker 1: online tip, not good, but and then missed the tip
Speaker 1: that was called in with all the details. That's worse.
Speaker 1: That was really bad. But the sheriff is beating up
Speaker 1: on the FBI. Meanwhile, he knows that his deputy was
Speaker 1: the one person on the scene who might have been
Speaker 1: to bring this to an end and save lives in
Speaker 1: the process, and just completely inexcusable laps, a completely inexcusable laps.
Speaker 1: And then you see the philosophical divide there for a moment,
Speaker 1: the one that I talked about at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the show. There you see what really separates the two
Speaker 1: signs here. The state big es state failed at every
Speaker 1: single level here, failure upon failure upon failure. And what
Speaker 1: is the refrain you here from the left? What does
Speaker 1: the sheriff say we need to do to fix this?
Speaker 1: Give the state more power? The state didn't use the
Speaker 1: power that it had. Give the state more power. The
Speaker 1: state didn't fulfill the obligations that it had. Give the
Speaker 1: state more power. This is why it's so hard to
Speaker 1: find common ground on this issue. We're not seeing the
Speaker 1: same things occurring here, right. This is and appalling and
Speaker 1: appalling and a disgraceful series of events leading up to
Speaker 1: enduring this shooting. And we are told that the answer is,
Speaker 1: by the way, banned guns. What will the answer, What
Speaker 1: will the answer be if they did even ben Let's
Speaker 1: say they just banned all semi and all new sales
Speaker 1: of semi automatic, right, which is not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But let's say they banned that, or they banned. All
Speaker 1: are fifteens. If you have them, they're grandfathered in. But otherwise,
Speaker 1: and again it's not gonna happen. What's the discussion after
Speaker 1: the next school shooting and it's a handgun, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a banned handgun, right, it has to be because
Speaker 1: if the logic of the air and Air fifteen was
Speaker 1: used the shooting, therefore we ban air fifteens, they're going
Speaker 1: to apply the same logic. Two, Well, a handgun as
Speaker 1: was there And as we know, the Virginia Tech shooting
Speaker 1: the biggest uh massacre in a school in the country. Actually,
Speaker 1: I think the single biggest loss of life in the
Speaker 1: school in school history or in the history of any
Speaker 1: school involved. The massacre was a bomb a very long
Speaker 1: time ago. I'll look up the specifics of it. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure about that, like a way way back when.
Speaker 1: But with with firearm it was pistol. So they're the
Speaker 1: next thing will be handguns. Pistols, that'll be the the next one.
Speaker 1: It has to be right or else what's the logic
Speaker 1: of the first decision. But it's not gonna stop any
Speaker 1: school shootings, as we know, all right, I've I've I've
Speaker 1: been going on at some length here. I know we've
Speaker 1: had not only every line lip, but I know people
Speaker 1: are people are sending me emails and Facebook messages. Want
Speaker 1: to get through what I got a lot to say.
Speaker 1: I want to get through. We're gonna rack and stack
Speaker 1: them right now. Team, We're gonna hear from a lot
Speaker 1: of you. So eight four four to five. As the
Speaker 1: lines open, as we take calls, spots will open up,
Speaker 1: and I want to hear from you. So we'll get
Speaker 1: into this and we'll be right back. I did feel
Speaker 1: like this opportunity was more successful than I anticipated. Um.
Speaker 1: I felt that President Trump was very sincere and diplomatic
Speaker 1: about his responses UH talking about during the discussion and after.
Speaker 1: I do believe that action will be taken by the
Speaker 1: President and the government of the United States, and that
Speaker 1: gun control will be in effect and changes near Se
Speaker 1: had some of the students from Marjorie Douglas High School
Speaker 1: that we're at the Trump listening session, willing to say
Speaker 1: that I thought it was it was a good, worthwhile event,
Speaker 1: and they think change is coming. What do you think
Speaker 1: about all this? But there's also there's gosh, I got
Speaker 1: breaking news here. Muller has filed thirty two new charges
Speaker 1: against Manafort and Gates. I've been thinking that superseding indictment
Speaker 1: was coming for a while. That is what this is.
Speaker 1: But this is the hammer again, Maniford, and this is
Speaker 1: dropping the hammer man of Fort and Gates are in
Speaker 1: h and for you know, some some rough times. It's
Speaker 1: not good because this is uh the tax for all
Speaker 1: tax evasion. These penalties are these penalties get stiff now
Speaker 1: it's just allegations. Who knows right and also has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Russia collusion or Trump or do they go?
Speaker 1: This is all stuff that happened before the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: But this is what special counsels do. Special counsels have
Speaker 1: to justify their existence. And you never want a bureaucrat
Speaker 1: with a lot of power who has to justify his
Speaker 1: or her existence. Not good, not good for liberty, not
Speaker 1: good for the rule of law. All right, every line, lid,
Speaker 1: come on, buck stop talking. Uh Danny in Batesville, Arkansas?
Speaker 1: What's up? Danny? Hey man? How you doing tonight? I'm
Speaker 1: all right, thanks Danny. Hey listen, I'm on the other side,
Speaker 1: I guess, but I got ant to caveat to this,
Speaker 1: you know, I man, it's ago more than thirty years
Speaker 1: without discussing my service in the Marines, because I served,
Speaker 1: you know, at the end of the Vietnam War. It
Speaker 1: was an aspective popular war, and at the end, everybody
Speaker 1: was just trying to get out. Nobody wanted to be
Speaker 1: the last one to get killed, you know. But I
Speaker 1: was barely eighteen years old the first time I came
Speaker 1: under fire, and the only thing I really remember was
Speaker 1: keying all over myself. Okay, So I mean, you never
Speaker 1: know what someone's gonna do. Now, I'm not defending at
Speaker 1: that that deputy, but yeah, I understand he's been a
Speaker 1: deputy since nine six. But I also heard something about
Speaker 1: this a couple of days ago that they were looking
Speaker 1: at his action. So it may have just popped on
Speaker 1: the news today, but there's been there's been an undercurrent
Speaker 1: about about what this guy, what this guy did? You
Speaker 1: know that I can remember, you know. I mean, it
Speaker 1: actually wasn't until I was hit with trapnel from a
Speaker 1: mortar around and I'm pretty sure it was one of ours,
Speaker 1: because it was a Willie feed around the white fospher's round,
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm trying to dig the white fosphers
Speaker 1: out of my arm. Well, I actually remember starting to
Speaker 1: fire my weapon. You know, you don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in a situation like that. All these brave
Speaker 1: deep we want to call I'll do this and I'll
Speaker 1: do that. Look, if it would been kids and I'd
Speaker 1: have been there, I'm pretty sure i'd have ran in there.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I don't know what for certainly need
Speaker 1: to do you and nobody else does. So all these
Speaker 1: all these armchair armchair quarterbacks and and call a duty
Speaker 1: brave guys, you know, they just don't know how they're
Speaker 1: gonna act in something like this. But I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: you so with Danny. But I need Danny. And let
Speaker 1: first off, we all respect your service, and I appreciate
Speaker 1: you given a perspective that's different to what we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: What you're gonna hear from a lot of other folks,
Speaker 1: I'm sure how can so? So that means if, for example,
Speaker 1: you said you when you were in the Marine Corps,
Speaker 1: if somebody deserted their posts because they got scared, that's
Speaker 1: a big problem. Right. Oh yeah, Look none of us ran.
Speaker 1: Look I was I was there. No, no no, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not suggesting anyone ran. I'm just saying. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: there has to be I'm just saying, there has to
Speaker 1: be accountability, even in extreme circumstances for those who are
Speaker 1: charged with life and death situations. Right, those who are
Speaker 1: even weapons, either in the service of their country or
Speaker 1: in the defense of civilians here at home, have an
Speaker 1: obligation and responsibility. So I mean, I I understand the
Speaker 1: impulse to say, Look, it's difficult and and you know,
Speaker 1: it's easy for people to judge, but we also have
Speaker 1: to hold someone accountable for not doing their duty while
Speaker 1: little kids are getting blown away, seventeen of them, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's listen, I understand he's he's being held accountable,
Speaker 1: and that's great. What I hate you hear other people
Speaker 1: call and brag about what they would have done because
Speaker 1: they don't know what they would have done. Okay, I
Speaker 1: just hate to hear braggers. It really just ranks me.
Speaker 1: And and you know, I'm I'm a registered gun owner.
Speaker 1: I am not an n r A member. I loathe
Speaker 1: and despise the n r A. I think they need
Speaker 1: to get out of politics. Why do you hate the
Speaker 1: n r A because they don't represent me. I'm a
Speaker 1: legal gun owner. I don't need the n r A
Speaker 1: is fronting for me, but they don't, the United States says,
Speaker 1: and I respect it, and I I helped defend it,
Speaker 1: and no one's gonna come take my guns away. And
Speaker 1: I'm tired of it. People just whipping people up in
Speaker 1: a frenzy. Oh man, they're gonna come get your guns,
Speaker 1: all Danny, if you had listened to some of the
Speaker 1: folks last night, If you listen to the folks last night,
Speaker 1: they actually do want to take your guns away. So
Speaker 1: I hate to be the one to break the bad
Speaker 1: news to you, but it is in fact the case
Speaker 1: that there are people who want to take your guns away,
Speaker 1: lots of them, and they run most of the media media,
Speaker 1: most of the main media organizations across the country. And yeah,
Speaker 1: there is that. All right, let's get to some other
Speaker 1: callers here. Jeff in Madison, North Carolina. Hey, Jeff, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for taking my call. And who was the last
Speaker 1: called Danny? I think so, yeah, you respect his uh,
Speaker 1: you know, service to the country. But I'm an n
Speaker 1: r A member and I love them. I'm a carry
Speaker 1: concealed holder and I do carry, and I would just
Speaker 1: like Danny to know, yes, I do think about it.
Speaker 1: When I'm carrying this weapon. You know, what is my role?
Speaker 1: What if something goes wrong? You know what am I
Speaker 1: gonna do? I consider those things. But anyway, the reason
Speaker 1: I was calling because you asked earlier what this deputy did.
Speaker 1: Does it change your mind on having armed either teachers
Speaker 1: or even security guards in schools? No, it does not,
Speaker 1: because how many times have we heard first responders running
Speaker 1: towards the danger just because this one guy made this
Speaker 1: terrible mistake and did not enter that building. First responders
Speaker 1: run toward the danger. We've heard it time and time again,
Speaker 1: and they're great people. And no, and that's Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is exactly right. We have to have offensive personnel in
Speaker 1: these schools. You know, we just keep That's all I've got, Gene.
Speaker 1: But Jeff, I just you can see how that the
Speaker 1: Democrats and the left are going to try to turn
Speaker 1: this into well it didn't work this time, so why
Speaker 1: it work? Then? You see what I mean? That's that's
Speaker 1: going to be the narrative from their side of it,
Speaker 1: just because this one man made a mistake. Now I
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I'm just saying be prepared. Everyone
Speaker 1: should be prepared for what comes next year. We're already
Speaker 1: seeing it. Yeah, well, it doesn't matter what the left says.
Speaker 1: I when they say something, I always turn it around
Speaker 1: on them. You know. They say that if we don't
Speaker 1: go along with their theory on how to handle this,
Speaker 1: then we we're all standing on dead bodies of young students. Well,
Speaker 1: I say just the opposite. If you don't go our way,
Speaker 1: you're the ones if you don't want armed guards and
Speaker 1: in schools, you're the ones that don't want a solution.
Speaker 1: We want the solution. We are trying to find a solution.
Speaker 1: And I've also tweeted out today that they don't they're
Speaker 1: not going to like it, but Donald Trump is going
Speaker 1: to be the one that does find a salute. I
Speaker 1: think that's true. I think, and it's gonna be there's
Speaker 1: some irony to this, right because Donald Trump coming. Thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in, Jeff, I appreciate your perspective. Uh,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump comes into office and they're saying he's a fascist,
Speaker 1: and he's the most right wing, he's all right, he's
Speaker 1: all this stuff. And here here's something that that may
Speaker 1: in fact be the case. Uh not, we don't know yet,
Speaker 1: but this is likely to be I would say a
Speaker 1: true statement that Donald Trump will have and at his
Speaker 1: urging right, not just a function of the Donald Trump
Speaker 1: will have managed within let's say, the first two years
Speaker 1: in office to have done more that was constructive and
Speaker 1: solution based on the issue of gun violence and particularly
Speaker 1: school shootings, then the Obama administration managed in eight years.
Speaker 1: That is likely to be It's not yet a true statement,
Speaker 1: it is likely to be a true statement depending on
Speaker 1: what comes out of all this. I think we are
Speaker 1: seeing this is quite possible. I just think about that
Speaker 1: for a moment. I mean, it's you kind of have
Speaker 1: to stop your tracks. So wow. That's and yet the
Speaker 1: left hates they will hate him every bit. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if if the if Trump, let's just say that
Speaker 1: the arming of teachers happens whatever, we're gonna call it, right,
Speaker 1: the increased armed personnel on campus, on in schools, and
Speaker 1: there was not another mass shooting in school in a
Speaker 1: school for the rest of Trump's term, which would be
Speaker 1: obviously fantastic, and they be considerable drop off. It's not
Speaker 1: like they'd say, oh, look at how great Trump is.
Speaker 1: You know now, it doesn't matter what he does. They hate,
Speaker 1: don't matter what. I just gotta remember that too. Um
Speaker 1: Ron in Virginia. Hey, Ron, how are you doing tonight?
Speaker 1: I'm good, Thank you for your call. So thank you.
Speaker 1: A couple of quick points. I'm forty five, so that
Speaker 1: tells my age, and but I would like to look
Speaker 1: at a bigger picture other than just armed guards. We
Speaker 1: have to look at what's going on with the children. Um.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I'm forty five years old. I grew
Speaker 1: up in the country. Uh. When I went to school,
Speaker 1: everybody had where I grew up had firearms in her vehicles,
Speaker 1: whether or not it was hunting rifles, shotguns during dove season. Uh.
Speaker 1: Everybody carried a knife, whether or not it was a
Speaker 1: hunting knife in a scabbard for a pocketknife. Back in
Speaker 1: my day, guys were still fighting in school, getting in
Speaker 1: his fight, and nobody ever pulled knaves were shot each other.
Speaker 1: Guns in our day, if you're my age, are older,
Speaker 1: you could buy right out of a J. C. Tennis
Speaker 1: catalog and had the gun step right to your house,
Speaker 1: no background checks. So guns are not the issue. You
Speaker 1: just have to look at the facts of it. Facts
Speaker 1: are is what's going on with our kids and society
Speaker 1: as a whole that we're at this point. So that's
Speaker 1: my one point when when is to Danny said that
Speaker 1: he doesn't like people judging. Yet he said he doesn't
Speaker 1: need the n r A because it will never come
Speaker 1: take to his guns. Well, he don't know what he
Speaker 1: would do if they showed up as his door to
Speaker 1: take his guns, so he has to use his own
Speaker 1: philosophy to come up with why not fight now? So
Speaker 1: you never have to worry about what you're gonna do
Speaker 1: when the federal agents decide to show up at you
Speaker 1: were in the door and take him because Danny may
Speaker 1: find that he was peeing on his leg Acain, And
Speaker 1: I just think you can't legislate behavior because it's all
Speaker 1: comes down to a moral compass. You have a great night,
Speaker 1: and yeah, thank you for hey rop, thank you, thank
Speaker 1: you for sharing your thoughts. Um. By the way, I
Speaker 1: mentioned the Bath I'm sorry I mentioned the biggest school
Speaker 1: death toll for an attack on a school in history.
Speaker 1: It was actually in and I was right, I just
Speaker 1: couldn't remember the name of it. The Bath School massacres
Speaker 1: that's called on UH. The eighteenth of May nine twenty
Speaker 1: seven in Bath Township, Michigan, forty four people killed. H
Speaker 1: This was through a UH fire bombing and a suicide
Speaker 1: by detonating a final device. So it's essentially fire bombing
Speaker 1: and explosions. Um that was that was so that was
Speaker 1: now that involved an adult, not an actual student, as
Speaker 1: as shooting the other students. But something has changed now
Speaker 1: and I'll maybe to address us the only side of
Speaker 1: the break, but we should not lose sight of the
Speaker 1: world has actually gotten less violent over tom not more
Speaker 1: are tolerance for violence in Western civilization, western society, and
Speaker 1: the world as a whole, uh has gone down, not up.
Speaker 1: This issue of school shootings is a particular and virulent
Speaker 1: phenomenon and maybe worth digging into that a bit more Africa.
Speaker 1: I didn't, by the way, I didn't mean to talk
Speaker 1: about school shootings for most of the show that I'm
Speaker 1: I just that's where the news took us because we
Speaker 1: had breaking news during the show. But there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a whole lot more that we're gonna to talk about tomorrow,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna have having David French joined us in
Speaker 1: a little bit here to talk about his his proposed solutions,
Speaker 1: which I think one of them is particularly strong, and
Speaker 1: then I gotta talk to about immigration. So there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a lot of We're gonna have some Russia stuff
Speaker 1: tomorrow to hit, but we'll be right back. I saw
Speaker 1: a particularly worthwhile threat on the issue of school shootings
Speaker 1: that I wanted to share with you. It comes courtesy
Speaker 1: of um Ari. Shulman is the fellow's name. He's a writer,
Speaker 1: and uh, I'm not sure even what his focus is,
Speaker 1: but he's on Twitter. Here's what he wrote, some song.
Speaker 1: Some why we and our institutions may be failing to
Speaker 1: deal with mass shootings because we approached them as part
Speaker 1: of broader problems, not as a distinct and self perpetuating plague.
Speaker 1: The problem with almost every narrative that mass shootings are
Speaker 1: actually an X problem is that X is usually so broad.
Speaker 1: It's like saying the real problem with asteroid impacts is
Speaker 1: that the Earth is so big. Take mental health. It's
Speaker 1: easy to say mass shootings are really a mental health
Speaker 1: problem because you'd have to be crazy to commit one. Right. No,
Speaker 1: not really. The literature does not reflect a strong link
Speaker 1: with serious mental illness. Some like the Virginia tech shooter,
Speaker 1: had serious diagnosed or diagnosable mental illness like psychopathy or
Speaker 1: major depression, but the large majority don't, and the vast
Speaker 1: majority of people with strong mental illness aren't violent. Here's
Speaker 1: another one. This is really about a America's love of guns,
Speaker 1: or it's just the most visible edge of our gun
Speaker 1: violence problem. Again, doesn't go very far in explaining mass shootings,
Speaker 1: which have moved opposite to gun ownership and overall gun
Speaker 1: homicide trends. It's very important we've seen this spike in
Speaker 1: mass casualty school shootings, but also we've seen drops in
Speaker 1: gun violence in recent decades, big drops. So what's going on?
Speaker 1: If it were just guns? That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: Mr Shulman goes on here, Uh, let's put armed guards
Speaker 1: in every school. Not outlandish, but would never encounter a shooter,
Speaker 1: and the few who did would be taken by surprise
Speaker 1: after years of board roaming of the hallways, probably why
Speaker 1: there are already many cases of shooters not being stopped
Speaker 1: by them. I would note that Mr. R. Shalman wrote
Speaker 1: this on February sixteenth, so he did not know what
Speaker 1: we know now about the armed guard at the high school,
Speaker 1: and goes on to this one mass shootings are a
Speaker 1: white or Asian problem. I've never seen this argument made
Speaker 1: in good faith, but it's bunk. The racial distribution of
Speaker 1: mass shooters is basically the same as the general population
Speaker 1: and actually almost completely mirrors what you know. The percentages
Speaker 1: are of the U. S population in terms of ethnic
Speaker 1: ethnic um background, male toxicity or a crisis of masculinity.
Speaker 1: He writes, hard to put numbers on that, but just
Speaker 1: about any definition would peg the problem. Far early than
Speaker 1: the late nineteen eighties, when the active shooter phenomenon really
Speaker 1: started to pick up in the United States, mass shootings
Speaker 1: do have something to do with these factors, except the
Speaker 1: race thing. That's totally a canard. But weakly saying they're
Speaker 1: actually about any one thing miss is the singular nature
Speaker 1: of this violence. It doesn't go anywhere rhetorically or practically
Speaker 1: or politically to the extent that mass shootings are about anything.
Speaker 1: This is the really important part, folks, it's themselves. They
Speaker 1: have a distinct etiology. There are a form of imitative
Speaker 1: a political terrorism fueled by anti social rage but spread
Speaker 1: by infamy seeking and social contagion. Strategies with a chance
Speaker 1: of doing anything must like past efforts to stop hijacking,
Speaker 1: terrorism and assassinations, understand mass shootings as a distinct form
Speaker 1: of self perpetuating violence. And strategically target them as such, Um,
Speaker 1: Mr Shawman, who is uh, He's written for the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal and The Atlantic. I think that's a very
Speaker 1: astute thread that he had there on truth about school
Speaker 1: shootings and how to stop them and to that. And
Speaker 1: we've got David French joining us, and then we will
Speaker 1: just a few minutes and we'll talk immigration for a
Speaker 1: couple of segments, and then we'll get into some roll
Speaker 1: hall and tomorrow, I promise a lot of other stuff
Speaker 1: we'll hit that we didn't get to today because it's
Speaker 1: just the way the show went. We'll be back. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the third hour of the Buck Section Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for being here. I know we've
Speaker 1: hit a lot of topics today, and I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring on someone who I mentioned earlier in the week
Speaker 1: in reference to a piece that he had written on
Speaker 1: well one aspect of this gun debate that has broken out,
Speaker 1: and in fact now we can have him weigh in
Speaker 1: on on a few different parts important parts of the discussion.
Speaker 1: Right now, we have David French on the line. He
Speaker 1: is a senior writer for Nashville also a veteran of
Speaker 1: the United States Armed Forces. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: calling in, David. Yeah, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So I actually wanted to start I know this is
Speaker 1: from an earlier piece you wrote, but I wanted to
Speaker 1: start with the notion of a temporary restraining order for
Speaker 1: gun buying. Essentially that strikes me. I mean, there are
Speaker 1: there are two places where I see really no problem
Speaker 1: if the legislation would be done correctly or if whatever
Speaker 1: whatever the fix would be. One would be that and
Speaker 1: the other has to do with what Dana Lash mentioned
Speaker 1: at the forum last night, the mental health checks at
Speaker 1: the state or mental health reporting and criminal reporting at
Speaker 1: the state level going to the federal government. But can
Speaker 1: we start with the uh, the temporary straining order that
Speaker 1: to me seems like a totally reasonable idea, and yet
Speaker 1: it's not seeming like it's the top of the list
Speaker 1: for either side right now. What's going on? Yeah, So
Speaker 1: the gun violence restraining order idea, I think has has
Speaker 1: got a couple of virtues to it. One, unlike the
Speaker 1: gun controlled ideas that are floated around, it's precisely targeted
Speaker 1: at the exact kind of problem that we're facing, and
Speaker 1: that is, there are people not just in the mass
Speaker 1: shooting context. Also often in the suicide context, who give
Speaker 1: off warning signs. Sometimes they're giving off warning signs like crazy,
Speaker 1: but they haven't been convicted of a felony, and they've
Speaker 1: not been adjudicated mentally unfit, and so therefore they still
Speaker 1: there's no way to deny them access to a firearm.
Speaker 1: What a gun violence or straining order does is it
Speaker 1: says it allows people who are close to a troubled
Speaker 1: person to go to a court and seek a temporary
Speaker 1: order upon providing clear and convincing evidence that a person
Speaker 1: is a significant danger to themselves or others, and that
Speaker 1: temporary order would require that person to be rid of
Speaker 1: their guns for a specified period of time. And and
Speaker 1: so what you have to do to get it is
Speaker 1: to come forward with admissible evidence like sworn statements, Instagram photos.
Speaker 1: In other words, exactly the kind of evidence that existed
Speaker 1: before the Parkland shooting, Exactly the kind of evidence was
Speaker 1: presented by the to the FBI. In this circumstance, you
Speaker 1: would empower people close to a troubled person to go
Speaker 1: to a local court. Again, so you're you're not feeding
Speaker 1: information to the maw of this really big bureaucracy. Go
Speaker 1: to a local court and get a temporary order, and
Speaker 1: the gun owner subject to the order would have an
Speaker 1: opportunity to contest it. And so it's very targeted at
Speaker 1: people who are giving off warning signs, and it gives
Speaker 1: people a tool to deal with people who are giving
Speaker 1: off warning signs while protecting due process. It has to
Speaker 1: be properly drawn, but I think it's got a lot
Speaker 1: of promise. I do too, And so I'm wondering, Uh,
Speaker 1: and maybe these are questions that you know, we can't
Speaker 1: answer just yet, but why is this not the thing
Speaker 1: that I'm I'll be honest with you, David, makes a
Speaker 1: lot more sense to me than trying to put armed
Speaker 1: security in a hundred thousand schools across the country. And
Speaker 1: I know people might get mad at me for saying that,
Speaker 1: but I you know, you serve the military. I certainly
Speaker 1: c I A putting people with guns in places is
Speaker 1: not as easy as people think it is sometimes in
Speaker 1: terms of the logistics and the the possible liabilities and
Speaker 1: everything else that goes on with it. Why isn't this
Speaker 1: do you get pushed back on this? Are are people?
Speaker 1: You know? You're a Second Amendment defender. I'm a second
Speaker 1: amendment defender who has a problem with this or is
Speaker 1: there no problem, it just isn't enough. Well, I think
Speaker 1: it's the latter that is just not known enough, because
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this, I wrote this article. I didn't
Speaker 1: come up with this idea. It's been proposed in a
Speaker 1: few states. Um, I wrote this article. It literally got
Speaker 1: more feedback I think than anything I've ever written in
Speaker 1: my career. The amount of feedback, and I would describe
Speaker 1: it as ninety percent positives. Marco Senator Rubio has been
Speaker 1: in support of it, um and so I think it's
Speaker 1: gaining some momentum. I believe the last last count, it's
Speaker 1: up to eighteen states or at least some version of
Speaker 1: this now. Some are better written than others, but some
Speaker 1: version of this has been proposed in eighteen states now.
Speaker 1: So it is gaining momentum. But it's not talked about
Speaker 1: because it doesn't fit particularly And even though you know,
Speaker 1: even though there are liberals who support this, it's not
Speaker 1: a huge sweeping change like an assault weapons fan Um.
Speaker 1: It's it's modest, it's very targeted. But I tell you,
Speaker 1: I think it could have real imp because if you
Speaker 1: look at say that the worst twenty mass shootings in
Speaker 1: the US since column mine. Setting aside the Las Vegas shooter,
Speaker 1: which is still such a mystery. Um. Time and time
Speaker 1: and time again, these people give off warning signs like
Speaker 1: you wouldn't believe, and nobody has really the capacity to
Speaker 1: do anything about it. Um. And this would give people
Speaker 1: that opportunity to do something when those warning signs are present.
Speaker 1: Speaking to David French of National Review, David, I also
Speaker 1: think that, uh, And I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: one you've looked at specifically yet, but Dana mentioned it
Speaker 1: at the CNN forum last night, which I will I
Speaker 1: did think was a complete debacle. I mean, not what
Speaker 1: she did, but what went on there. Nonetheless, Uh, she
Speaker 1: mentioned that there should be information at the state level
Speaker 1: passed to the federal background check system so that if
Speaker 1: somebody does something real crazy, you know, if if somebody
Speaker 1: is one of these guys that used to see on
Speaker 1: the show Cops who's running around shirtless after he stabbed
Speaker 1: three people with a screwdriver, that needs to be back
Speaker 1: information that goes to the federal back round checksism that
Speaker 1: we already have in place. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people are surprised to know one that that's not there.
Speaker 1: And two, uh, is there pushback to this? I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you think? Yeah, I mean I think that
Speaker 1: should go as well. I think the the unfortunate thing
Speaker 1: is that the state mental health adjudications are so broken,
Speaker 1: and it is. It is not easy. It is not
Speaker 1: easy to involuntarily get a mental health adjudication for somebody else.
Speaker 1: And the other thing is what we have to realize
Speaker 1: is a lot of these circumstances, people aren't crazy. They're angry,
Speaker 1: they're not insane, they're evil. It's a very important point
Speaker 1: that the problem is if you're saying, well, everyone, all
Speaker 1: these people are crazy, that's just flat out wrong. So
Speaker 1: the mental health adjudication issue, I agree, we can do
Speaker 1: a better job of that. But the difference between that
Speaker 1: and they say the gun violence restraining order, the gun
Speaker 1: violence restraining order capture somebody even if they're not crazy,
Speaker 1: they're angry. And in fact, where it's been enforced in
Speaker 1: um in California, it's been used a number of times,
Speaker 1: for example, in the situation of angry ex husbands or
Speaker 1: you know, people who are going through a crisis in
Speaker 1: life and they're very angry. Disc you know, the going
Speaker 1: back back to a place of business or something like that,
Speaker 1: and so, um, we just really cannot put in our
Speaker 1: minds this idea that all these people who do these
Speaker 1: things are crazy, because they're not all crazy. Well. And
Speaker 1: also anyone who I've actually done a little bit of
Speaker 1: research on on psychopathy and psychopaths can can function very
Speaker 1: normally a lot of the time. In fact, some psychopaths
Speaker 1: do very well in life. It's there's there's a certain
Speaker 1: type of psychopathy that manifests itself in really dangerous, horrible fashion,
Speaker 1: but even the worst of the worst can actually come
Speaker 1: across as pretty normal. So even when we're talking David
Speaker 1: about the scary, you know, maniacal killer type, uh, they
Speaker 1: often will appear normal to a lot of people. So
Speaker 1: they're not running around, you know, acting like maniacs in
Speaker 1: a way that would be observable to every to people
Speaker 1: in the general public, right, I mean, now, to a
Speaker 1: lot of those people who's look normal to the general public,
Speaker 1: into their households, they do not, right, which is where
Speaker 1: the restraining order would come in and be helpful, exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: And so that's I think that's something that Look, I'm
Speaker 1: a big fan of laboratories of democracy and I would
Speaker 1: love to see some Red states implement I properly drafted
Speaker 1: g v R OH and then study it after a year,
Speaker 1: two years, who has the order been granted against under
Speaker 1: what circumstances? And then you know, you can look at
Speaker 1: that and if it's been successful, if it appears to
Speaker 1: save lives without violating you know, fundamental due process rights
Speaker 1: that Americans enjoy, then you can replicate it and move
Speaker 1: on and refine it and improve it. You know, people
Speaker 1: say do something. I really hate that phrase. Something I
Speaker 1: would prefer phrase why why not do something that has
Speaker 1: a chance to be effective? And and this is something
Speaker 1: I think that has that chance. What do you think
Speaker 1: is different about this time? Clearly we've one of the
Speaker 1: reasons we're having a discussion is because there's been multiple
Speaker 1: mass school mass casualty school shooting stretching back for years. Now.
Speaker 1: Why why does it seem like now with a Republican House,
Speaker 1: Republican senator, Republican president, we may get some action on
Speaker 1: this when we have it in the past. Well, I
Speaker 1: think I think what's happened is it's finally dawned on
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans that we have a real contagion
Speaker 1: issue with the mass shootings. So if you know gun overall,
Speaker 1: gun violence in this country has dropped precipitously from you know,
Speaker 1: the highs and twenty five years ago. Um. But these
Speaker 1: mass shootings, on the other hand, it's almost like there's
Speaker 1: a virus loose on the land. When you consider that
Speaker 1: three of the five worst mass shootings in American history
Speaker 1: occurred in twenty seventeen, that's pretty stunning. Uh. And then
Speaker 1: you add this swin, which is yet another school shooting, um,
Speaker 1: and you reach a point where a lot of people
Speaker 1: are saying, what what can we do? Is there something
Speaker 1: that we can do? Because we have a real problem
Speaker 1: here and now. Of course, you know your average American
Speaker 1: student is the odds of them being exposed to school
Speaker 1: shooting is are vanishingly small. But each one of these
Speaker 1: things is deeply traumatic in the same way that a
Speaker 1: big time terrorist attack is traumatic. They really hit people,
Speaker 1: and they hit people in the gut, and the more
Speaker 1: quickly the gut punches come, the more desperation build. Of
Speaker 1: the of the different options that are out there, what
Speaker 1: do you think of the ones that are getting a
Speaker 1: lot of attention right now, at least from from Republicans.
Speaker 1: I mean, put it on the side that there's there's
Speaker 1: clearly a lot of Democrats who just want to bang
Speaker 1: on semi on semi automatic rifles, ben l a r
Speaker 1: span all guns. Putting all those aside. Though of the
Speaker 1: other proposals, Trump's obviously spending a lot of time on
Speaker 1: armed security in schools. What do you think? I am not, um,
Speaker 1: I'm skeptical about that. I mean, for a couple of reasons. One,
Speaker 1: you will have huge pushback at the school level to that,
Speaker 1: except for you know, your your standard school resource officer.
Speaker 1: A lot a lot of schools have those things already,
Speaker 1: I mean, but but to say that a single school
Speaker 1: resource officer is going to be a panacea, I think
Speaker 1: just completely misunderstands the reality. I mean, you have one
Speaker 1: guy on these big campuses, and uh, you know who's
Speaker 1: going to spend most of his day's board and breaking
Speaker 1: up fights and then has to be ready at a
Speaker 1: moment's notice to spring into action at exactly right place
Speaker 1: at the right time. It's a lot to ask, ye,
Speaker 1: and you have a calculating nineteen year old psychopath who
Speaker 1: has access to a firearm and decides he's going to
Speaker 1: go after a school. He knows well, he's gonna either
Speaker 1: go with the resource officer isn't, or go after the
Speaker 1: resource officer first. So that's another part of this, but
Speaker 1: I feel like doesn't get much attention. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: that just the mechanics of it, I'm skeptical that that's
Speaker 1: a cure all. I do think that there is an
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing wrong. For example, in in my home count Easy,
Speaker 1: UM sheriff and the police department made a school resource
Speaker 1: officer available to every school, public and private in the county,
Speaker 1: UM if they so chose. I think that's there's nothing
Speaker 1: wrong with that. But I think that what we have
Speaker 1: to say is we're not going to say there's any
Speaker 1: one thing that's the panacea. UM, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a combination. So I think, yes, UM, having more security
Speaker 1: at schools is a good thing. It's not going to
Speaker 1: be the answer. Yes, gun violence restraining orders is going
Speaker 1: to be a good thing. It's not going to be
Speaker 1: the answer. But here's something that I saw floated that
Speaker 1: was very interesting to me. When we've had crime, critical
Speaker 1: crime issues in the past, one of the things that
Speaker 1: we've done is we've organized, for example, specific law enforcement
Speaker 1: task forces designed to deal with it. Like like um
Speaker 1: gang ask forces and specific tasking specific entities to try
Speaker 1: to tackle the problem from multiple angles. I do wonder
Speaker 1: if it's time for a specific umkin like you could
Speaker 1: even be like a federal local law enforcement partnership like
Speaker 1: HI to high intensity drug trafficking area. They started when
Speaker 1: they realized how bad the drug problem was. The FBI,
Speaker 1: d a local law enforcement all working together. Yeah, David,
Speaker 1: we gotta leave it there because we're gonna run into
Speaker 1: our heart break. But everyone should go check out David's
Speaker 1: work Nashal Review dot com, David French, follow him on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and David, thank you for some very thoughtful contributions to
Speaker 1: what has been, uh quite a discussion this week in
Speaker 1: some ways as you as I'm sure you've seen so
Speaker 1: I appreciate the pieces you're you and the rest of
Speaker 1: your colleagues that n are putting up there. So thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Well, thanks much, appreciate it. All right, team,
Speaker 1: we're gonna roll into a break. Will be back. I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about a little immigration story
Speaker 1: that's not getting nearly enough attention. I feel like we
Speaker 1: should give it a whole a more attention, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do that in just a couple of minutes, so
Speaker 1: stay with me. And yet we get no help from
Speaker 1: the state of California. They are doing a lousy management job.
Speaker 1: They have the highest taxes in the nation. They don't
Speaker 1: know what's happening out there. It's a it's a frankly,
Speaker 1: it's a disgrace the sanctuary city situation and the protection
Speaker 1: of these horrible criminals in California and other places, but
Speaker 1: in California. That if we haven't pulled our ice out
Speaker 1: and we haven't said, hey, let California alone, let them
Speaker 1: figure it out for themselves, in two months, they'd be
Speaker 1: begging for us to come back. They would be begging.
Speaker 1: And you know what I'm thinking about doing it. He's
Speaker 1: thinking about pulling immigrations and customs enforcement out of the
Speaker 1: state of California. WHOA all right now? Is he serious?
Speaker 1: I don't know. We're talking about Trump here, everybody. Would
Speaker 1: he maybe be willing to roll the dice on this
Speaker 1: one to make the point It would be a powerful
Speaker 1: point at at what would happen in the state of
Speaker 1: California if all of a sudden, the federal member it
Speaker 1: was fought by the the obadministration fought state efforts to
Speaker 1: help in immigration enforcement, and the federal court this was
Speaker 1: in Arizona, held that, okay, only the federal government can
Speaker 1: do immigration enforcement. But I think that also then raises
Speaker 1: an interesting question about, well, what happens if the federal
Speaker 1: government were to say, you know what, for this state,
Speaker 1: we don't think we need to have our resources there.
Speaker 1: We don't think we have to actually prioritize immigration immigration
Speaker 1: enforcement in that state. So we're just gonna pull all
Speaker 1: of our resources out, or even just a lot of them,
Speaker 1: even just to have a policy of prioritization that directs
Speaker 1: the immigrations and customs enforcement folks in California, or just
Speaker 1: not do anything. You know, you've got other things you
Speaker 1: gotta worry about, guys. I don't know. State could probably
Speaker 1: sue for a little while. I'm sure California would actually overall,
Speaker 1: I mean, the people listening to the show in California
Speaker 1: are a conservative, so they're like, oh my gosh, the
Speaker 1: taxes in my state. It's run so poorly. It's it's
Speaker 1: all crumbling. People are running to Colorado and Texas and
Speaker 1: all these other places. Um, but I think for a
Speaker 1: little while there would be almost like an immigration Jubilee
Speaker 1: in California. People would just say, yeah, you know, now
Speaker 1: everything is great and it's wonderful, and we're it's a
Speaker 1: it's a it's a fresh start for immigration policy here
Speaker 1: and everything else. But then they'd realize what happens if
Speaker 1: you just have unrestricted inflow into one state? What would
Speaker 1: that do? Now? Look, I know they can't really do
Speaker 1: if they're not really going to do this, but I
Speaker 1: just think it's interesting that, first of all, it doesn't
Speaker 1: even get Trump says this and again barely gets noticed
Speaker 1: at all. People don't even really bring it up. They're
Speaker 1: just kind of like, yeah, you know whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: it's just just just Trump being Trump. And and yet
Speaker 1: this would have quite the impact were he to do it.
Speaker 1: And it shows that that the sanctuary city issue is
Speaker 1: not is not yet going to fade into the ether. Also,
Speaker 1: it's been in California. I just had to note. I
Speaker 1: read a story on how San Francisco is just parts
Speaker 1: of San Francis, which is a beautiful city. I've I've
Speaker 1: really enjoyed some time I've spent there. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of really nice stuff, but the food is incredible. It's
Speaker 1: a it's actually a physically very beautiful place, but because
Speaker 1: of all their policies, particularly when it comes to the
Speaker 1: vagrancy and homelessness and you know, drug use and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, and just general law enforcement and civic clean up.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't know even what you'd call it.
Speaker 1: That there are whole areas of California now that the
Speaker 1: quote in the paper was looked like a third world
Speaker 1: trash dump. A whole whole area of San Francisco, I said,
Speaker 1: californ him in sanc im in San Francisco. Whole parts
Speaker 1: of San Francisco look like, uh, just a giant pile
Speaker 1: of refuse because of the policies of the city. And
Speaker 1: it makes you think, how can you have a city
Speaker 1: that's so expensive. There's a tremendous concentration wealth in the
Speaker 1: Bay Area, and that just allows there's like needles everywhere,
Speaker 1: and there's human you know, refuse on the streets a lot,
Speaker 1: and all kinds of stuff going on there. It's just
Speaker 1: a mess. And I asked a friend of mine who
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time out there, went to school
Speaker 1: out there, and he said, oh no, this is true
Speaker 1: in San Francisco. This this is happening right now. In
Speaker 1: some parts of downtown. It is. It is gross. I
Speaker 1: just wonder, you know, at what point do progressives At
Speaker 1: what point did they cross the threshold where they realized
Speaker 1: that their policy preferences aren't worth being ankle deep in
Speaker 1: in urine and use needles. You know, at what point
Speaker 1: do they Because in New York they had to cross
Speaker 1: the threshold and took them well, and they got there,
Speaker 1: and now New York is actually really safe and clean.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about immigration coming up here. I gotta
Speaker 1: run to a break, but we'll be back with more.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Oh, I have another bit of immigration
Speaker 1: news to share with you today. Look at this. You know,
Speaker 1: you you poke around a little bit in the headlines.
Speaker 1: You find some stuff that you might not have otherwise. So, okay,
Speaker 1: Trump's comment about maybe pulling immigrations and costins enforcement out
Speaker 1: of California, you got that. But then you also, and
Speaker 1: this is courtesy of the Hill not calm, today, you
Speaker 1: also have the Immigration Agency itself removing the phrase nation
Speaker 1: of immigrants from its mission statements. Removing that phrase. Let
Speaker 1: me share the little warn Your US Citizenship and Immigration
Speaker 1: Services altered mission statement on Thursday by taking out a
Speaker 1: reference to the United States as a nation of immigrants.
Speaker 1: The new mission statement reads US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Speaker 1: administers the nation's lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and
Speaker 1: promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits,
Speaker 1: while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and arguing our values.
Speaker 1: The agency says, the new mission statement focuses on the
Speaker 1: priorities of fairness, lawfulness, and efficiency. Ah So a little
Speaker 1: a little bit of of propaganda taken out of the
Speaker 1: Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Uh motto mission well, mission statement
Speaker 1: not motto. Looks like they have changed things up a
Speaker 1: little bit. Look at that. I have to say. This
Speaker 1: is Uh, this is one of these things where you
Speaker 1: sit around, you think about this more and more you realize,
Speaker 1: what what does that even mean? We're a nation of immigrants. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not true in the sense that every nation is
Speaker 1: a nation of immigrants. There's no say if you're going
Speaker 1: to play the well my an ancestors came here from
Speaker 1: somewhere else game. Uh, there is no country that I
Speaker 1: can think of that that is not the case, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, someone came from somewhere at some point in time.
Speaker 1: So what is the distinction that is being made. Why
Speaker 1: are we being told at the time, well, we're a
Speaker 1: nation of immigrants. It's really just a point of propaganda
Speaker 1: to suggests that that there's no difference whatsoever. And look,
Speaker 1: legal immigrants, great, welcome, God bless good to have you
Speaker 1: in America. But the notion that there's no such thing
Speaker 1: really even as an immigrant, because everyone's just an American
Speaker 1: and you know, an American and waiting or an American
Speaker 1: that came here through immigration, is historical revisionism. It's not
Speaker 1: the truth. And this is one of these little things
Speaker 1: that I know people are going to spend a lot
Speaker 1: of tension on. But you know, you start to look
Speaker 1: at this, you say to yourself, oh, that talking point
Speaker 1: that's been repeated by the media for the last twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty years ad nauseum. It's just not even accurate.
Speaker 1: Never mind, it's kind of a worthless thing to say.
Speaker 1: Like saying that they'll do the jobs Americans won't do.
Speaker 1: What a sweeping nonsensical statement to make. Uh yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: people that are unlikely to be filing any income tax
Speaker 1: of any kind will take a different wage basis for
Speaker 1: their labor than people who are planning to actually file
Speaker 1: a an income tax report. And there's also the issue
Speaker 1: of people who are here illegally being more likely to
Speaker 1: take lower skilled, lower paying jobs because they're just looking
Speaker 1: for any work here, because they're not supposed to be
Speaker 1: in the country in the first place. But the slogans.
Speaker 1: Getting rid of the slogans is not a small thing,
Speaker 1: no longer having every journalist who wants a cheap round
Speaker 1: of applause go, well, we're a nation of immigrants. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's accurate, because it's not. We're not
Speaker 1: a nation of immigrants any more so than every other
Speaker 1: country that has borders immigration policies. As a nation of immigrants.
Speaker 1: It's just nonsense. Um. And yet it's taken this long
Speaker 1: for us to get to a point where we'll finally say, okay,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll take that out of the mission statement of
Speaker 1: the agency that has the mandate of enforcing border security.
Speaker 1: So isn't also just I have to note that immigration
Speaker 1: dropped off the docket. I understand why, we all understand why,
Speaker 1: but just entirely and so quickly. It was supposed to
Speaker 1: be the big policy fight really of the first quarter
Speaker 1: of the first few months of the year. There's tied
Speaker 1: to the budget, the dead increase, all that, and it's
Speaker 1: just gotten pushed the waist. A Trump showdown with sanctuary cities.
Speaker 1: I still think it's coming, but man, it has been.
Speaker 1: It has been cast aside without without much a do
Speaker 1: without without much fanfare. So anyway, well, we'll be back
Speaker 1: on the immigration issue soon, I think, and especially if
Speaker 1: Trump decides he's gonna pull mmgrations and custers enforcement from California.
Speaker 1: That would be interesting. We're gonna get into some roll
Speaker 1: call coming up. Stay with me. Oh but by by
Speaker 1: the way, before I I actually go into that, break
Speaker 1: hold on a second, there was one other thing I
Speaker 1: wanted to toss the mixer, and that is that, uh California,
Speaker 1: because we're mentioning it with the immigrations and custs of
Speaker 1: enforcement thing. Uh, California agriculture is seeing a quote chilling
Speaker 1: and damaging effect from a wave of immigration audits. So
Speaker 1: there's already an impact here from the escalation of enforcement
Speaker 1: priorities or an enforcement period that the Trump administration has
Speaker 1: on illegals and on on employers. That's always been the
Speaker 1: part of this that Republicans in elected office seemed to
Speaker 1: get the squishiest on the fastest, fastest. They they're all,
Speaker 1: you know, oh yeah, I'll talk tough on the board
Speaker 1: and everything else. The moment you say, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: a we're gonna start telling employe or is that they
Speaker 1: can't keep doing this, and that means finding them and
Speaker 1: holding them accountable. Then then Republicans in the Congress start
Speaker 1: to get all, hey, hold on a second, we needn't
Speaker 1: think this, think about this a little more. You know,
Speaker 1: we're a nation, we're a nation of immigrance. You know,
Speaker 1: they're doing the jobs Americans won't do. You know. Then
Speaker 1: the talking points come out, So I've already seen there's
Speaker 1: an impact here. I just want to note that that
Speaker 1: story and and now with that my friends will get
Speaker 1: into roll call. Man, it is a rainy and bleak
Speaker 1: day here in New York, and it feels like kind
Speaker 1: of a gut punch after yesterday when, for no apparent reason,
Speaker 1: it was in the mid seventies here it was it
Speaker 1: was straight up California t shirt weather, Hangton calibunga uh,
Speaker 1: even though no one ever has really said that except
Speaker 1: for the teenage mutant Ninja Turtles, and I guess Spaccoli
Speaker 1: from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: it's not not doesn't really stand up, doesn't we stand up.
Speaker 1: I got a little heat last night because I said
Speaker 1: something that you're all welcome to weigh in on two.
Speaker 1: I got a little heat because I just wrote on
Speaker 1: Twitter that the Batman Trilogy by Nolan, you know, by
Speaker 1: Christopher Nolan directed directed it, that is good but not great,
Speaker 1: and everyone pretends it's amazing, and I just think it's true.
Speaker 1: It was on last night one of them, and I'm
Speaker 1: like this, There's so many plot holes. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of noise, you know, not a lot of character development.
Speaker 1: There's some problems. The first one is the best overall
Speaker 1: movie in my opinion. The second one has the best
Speaker 1: performance Heath Ledger Arrest in Peace. He was the joker.
Speaker 1: The third one is just kind of a mess. The
Speaker 1: third one doesn't even make any sense. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I was not into it. And Christopher Nolan, I think
Speaker 1: it's all a little grandiose and heavy handed sometimes. But
Speaker 1: you know, everyone thinks I'm well, not everyone. A lot
Speaker 1: of people think I'm wrong. On that one. I was
Speaker 1: just in a mood because I knew it was pouring
Speaker 1: rain outside, just bleak, wet, rainy, dark nastiness here in
Speaker 1: New York, So, uh does affect your mood? Um, I'm
Speaker 1: excited that I get to have a dinner tonight after
Speaker 1: the show with my little sis, who is an amazing lawyer.
Speaker 1: She's she's a lawyer who does all the important stuff
Speaker 1: that lawyer. I don't even really know what she does.
Speaker 1: Is realized that I know she's a lawyer, but I'm
Speaker 1: gonna beyond that. I can't speak to me specifics. We're
Speaker 1: gonna hang out, have some big bro little cis time
Speaker 1: and chat about about life and all the different things.
Speaker 1: And it's important because she is the same age as
Speaker 1: Miss Molly, so that means that I can I can
Speaker 1: ask my little sis to tell me about what's going
Speaker 1: on in the pop culture world, so I don't seem
Speaker 1: like some out of touch old fogy. And then I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: do you hear about the new Tyler the Creator album?
Speaker 1: There's some great cuts on it, man, it's awesome. And
Speaker 1: also Taylor Swift, which I'm not gonna lie. I actually
Speaker 1: I do know a bit about Taylor Swift, so Lebrator
Speaker 1: whole catalog. So now that I've sufficiently wandered off into
Speaker 1: no man's land here for no apparent reason. Let's get
Speaker 1: into some some roll call. Team buck it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. I think it's a very important part of
Speaker 1: the show because it allows those of you who either
Speaker 1: listen a little later on, because you know, we've got
Speaker 1: the twenty four hour stream of this show, so you
Speaker 1: can just go to other bucks x and dot com
Speaker 1: or the I heart app anytime if you missed the show,
Speaker 1: you click and it just streams on the I heart
Speaker 1: app the buck Sexton Show. So if you're listening on
Speaker 1: delay but there's something you really you're like, dag knabbit, Buck,
Speaker 1: you got that One't wrong again? U? You can you know,
Speaker 1: you can send me a very kind and supportive text,
Speaker 1: not text passage, sorry whoa email or Facebook message. Not
Speaker 1: giving out my cell phone number just yet, but email
Speaker 1: uh to official Team Bucket Gmail dot com or Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton, and that's I feel like
Speaker 1: that's a way to make sure that everybody's a part
Speaker 1: of the conversation, not just our wonderful live callers throughout
Speaker 1: the show. So now with that we will get into
Speaker 1: some roll call. I do this, I do this as
Speaker 1: I go, So that means that sometimes I don't really know,
Speaker 1: uh you know, I don't really know what I'm getting
Speaker 1: until I get into it a little bit. So, James
Speaker 1: writes in Buck, I just finished season one of Sneaky
Speaker 1: Pete on Amazon. I loved it, starring Giovanni Rubisi and
Speaker 1: directed by Brian Cranston Sneaky Pete. I will write that
Speaker 1: one down and I will check it out. I'm keeping
Speaker 1: two lists. One is the shows that I have either
Speaker 1: seen and want to go back to, and then the
Speaker 1: others new shows. So only go back to list the
Speaker 1: Americans Great Show. I just got distracted and then I
Speaker 1: stopped watching it because I don't know why the same
Speaker 1: thing with Justified Great Show didn't get to finish. And
Speaker 1: now I'm looking at some other stuff. Ozark, I'm burning
Speaker 1: through with Miss Molly. We went through the marvelous Mrs
Speaker 1: Masel very very quickly. The lead actress in that it's
Speaker 1: an Amazon Prime show lead actresses is incredible, very very talented.
Speaker 1: So let's get to here we go. Don next up here,
Speaker 1: rights Buck, you're an analyst. There seems to be a
Speaker 1: recurring pattern here. The Underwear Bomber reported the FBI by
Speaker 1: his father surnee of brothers reported the FBI by Russian officials.
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook shooter, known to his high school officials and
Speaker 1: local police, is potentially violent. The Arizona shooter, known to
Speaker 1: his high school officials and local police, is potentially violent.
Speaker 1: The Aurora shooter, known to university officials, is potentially violent.
Speaker 1: The South Texas church shooter known to Air Force officials
Speaker 1: for domestic violence, the Florida shooter known to high school
Speaker 1: officials and local police, and the FBI was notified that
Speaker 1: he was potentially violent. This what you've just written to me,
Speaker 1: Donna's that's all accurate from my memory here. All of
Speaker 1: those things you just wrote to me are true. All
Speaker 1: those statements are accurate. It is it is not let's
Speaker 1: be let's be serious about it. It It is not confidence
Speaker 1: inspiring for the FBI's ability to intervene and deter. But
Speaker 1: you know, this is a whole other discussion, and it's
Speaker 1: not one that a lot of folks generally like to
Speaker 1: get into. But I'm not going to shy away from
Speaker 1: it just because law enforcement exactly like law enforcement exists
Speaker 1: to create the uh, the normalcy of data of a
Speaker 1: day to day life where you have an expectation of
Speaker 1: some rule of law, some piece, some safety, some security,
Speaker 1: all of that. Right, law enforcement also does a whole
Speaker 1: lot of punishment after the fact for those who break
Speaker 1: the law invested. A lot of investigations are about I
Speaker 1: mean a vast majority of investigations are about what has happened,
Speaker 1: and then you get into well, how do you stop
Speaker 1: somebody who would be a mass shooter? That's similar conversations,
Speaker 1: So how do you stop somebody who has radicalized and
Speaker 1: would be a terrorist? And intervening and preventing someone from
Speaker 1: taking an illegal action in the absence of illegal action
Speaker 1: is not something that law enforcement excels at. And there
Speaker 1: are some structural reasons for that law enforce in this case,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the FBI, but there are reasons for that.
Speaker 1: One is that it's just really hard to do and
Speaker 1: I understand that, right. So this is where we start
Speaker 1: to get into pre crime, that Tom Cruise movie, that
Speaker 1: whole notion of stopping someone before they do something bad
Speaker 1: because you know they're gonna do it, Well, how do
Speaker 1: you really know? But then also you see how we
Speaker 1: have a different approach in this country. I've mentioned this
Speaker 1: to you before to what we do with intelligence versus
Speaker 1: law enforcement. You know, Britain has uh M I five,
Speaker 1: Germany has the I believe it's the b f V.
Speaker 1: The French have the d G S I. So there
Speaker 1: are all these different European countries that take essentially an
Speaker 1: intelligence collection approach and apply it specifically to preventing things
Speaker 1: from happening in those countries where and now whether they
Speaker 1: do it better or not as a separate discussion, But
Speaker 1: here we have the FBI is not really an intelligence agency,
Speaker 1: it's a law enforcement agency, and there's always attention there.
Speaker 1: So the intervention before the event can be tricky, right,
Speaker 1: because you want to first of all, you have to know,
Speaker 1: as I said, and then also you have to make
Speaker 1: sure that if you do intervene, you have a sound
Speaker 1: basis for it. You don't blow sources and methods, you
Speaker 1: don't accelerate other planning that could be going on from
Speaker 1: associated individuals. There's a lot of different moving pieces in this.
Speaker 1: Preventing evil, venting wrong doing, preventing lawbreaking is a whole
Speaker 1: lot harder than punishing those who break the law. And
Speaker 1: that's a that's a disparity that I don't think we
Speaker 1: spend much time thinking about when we look at these events.
Speaker 1: But we've gotten really good as a society at punishing lawbreakers.
Speaker 1: We've gotten really good at you know, if you commit
Speaker 1: a murder and you have any connection to the person,
Speaker 1: there's a very good chance, very good chance you'll be charged,
Speaker 1: whether you'll whether a jury of peers will go along,
Speaker 1: and that can be a little more tricky sometimes. Um,
Speaker 1: but that's you know that, that's where we are right now.
Speaker 1: It's it's not a it's not an easy thing to
Speaker 1: do to say, hey, you've got to stop people before
Speaker 1: they take illegal acts. Now, before anyone starts yelling at me.
Speaker 1: I understand in the case of the floor is shooting,
Speaker 1: there were illegal acts, comments about illegal threats, uh, and
Speaker 1: there was a basis for mental health intervention. I get
Speaker 1: all that, But I'm just saying in general, so so
Speaker 1: law enforces straight up did everyone's been saying It's true,
Speaker 1: drop the ball on that. But in general, it's going
Speaker 1: to be harder to stop somebody from doing something than
Speaker 1: to punish people who do wrong and then hope that
Speaker 1: that keeps the rest of us basically on line. In
Speaker 1: line cade with the following I Good Morning Book I
Speaker 1: have a request for you to send to your tech nerds.
Speaker 1: I'm a daily podcast listener and I often have trouble
Speaker 1: hearing the podcast. Can you have the volume increased? Also,
Speaker 1: I'm completely disgusted about what I saw on CNN last night.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure of seeing anything like it. Imagine if
Speaker 1: they did something similar to Clinton or Obama regarding any
Speaker 1: number of topics. Yeah, I'm I mean, that's I've been saying. Cade.
Speaker 1: I am completely horrified by the whole thing too. Although
Speaker 1: it doesn't surprise me at all. I know CNN well
Speaker 1: up close and personal, nothing about what happened. They're surprised me.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was expecting it. I didn't watch it
Speaker 1: because I knew it would happen, and then I realized, well,
Speaker 1: it was so grotesque that I have to go back
Speaker 1: and watch it. So I did in the in the
Speaker 1: wee hours of the morning last night. Um. But and
Speaker 1: as to the podcast, the guys here telling me I
Speaker 1: just need to speak in the Mike Moore, I get
Speaker 1: very animated in the hut, and so sometimes I I
Speaker 1: bounce around and you know, I uh, sometimes I'm moving
Speaker 1: my hands around and stuff, and I forget that my
Speaker 1: Mike is not near my mouth, So I'm gonna try
Speaker 1: to be a little more discipline. I'm gonna have greater
Speaker 1: Mike disciplinestead of you know, people talking about muzzle discipline
Speaker 1: gotta be safe. Uh, Mike discipline is something I'm gonna
Speaker 1: work on here. With that, my friends, I am gonna
Speaker 1: shut down the Freedom Hunt for the evening. But tomorrow
Speaker 1: we got a Freestyle Friday coming your way. I already
Speaker 1: have some fun surprises in store for you. Hopefully, if
Speaker 1: the news cycle cooperates, will have kind of a a
Speaker 1: chilled out and relaxing show. I'm hoping that will be
Speaker 1: possible to take us into the weekend. So get ready
Speaker 1: for that, and until then, no matter what comes your way,
Speaker 1: Shields Hi