Debate on gun control and Second Amendment rights

I will walk in with the devil one day. Welcome to the Devils in the Details radio show live on skidrowstudios.com. Here's your hosts, Wine Russell and Nestor Rodriguez. Because the land of love and freedom is just a baby's breath away. And if we hold hands together, we can bring back peace. Welcome to the Devils in the Details radio show live here on skidrowstudios.com. Thank you for joining us again on a lovely Friday. We have a very important show for you today, of course. My name is Wine Russell, and I couldn't do this show without my compassionate co-host. He is a vital part of the program, Mr. Nestor Rodriguez. You could do the show without me, but it wouldn't be as provocative. How you doing, man? I'm good, I'm good. What's up with you? We had a very interesting week this week with some gun control policy attempting to be created. How do you feel about Obama's new gun control plan? Just a little overview. How do you feel? How do I feel? You know, real quick, I think some of it is necessary. That's what I think. Okay. Today we were reviewing many things gun control. Including the new Obama gun control plan, or as we on the Devils in the Details show like to call it, the great American gun grab. So that is the show we are having here today. And you all know, you can always call into the show and share any concerns or opinions at 1-800-893-9562. That's 1-800-893-9562. I'd love to hear your thoughts and feelings on how important it is that we maintain our right to legally arm and protect ourselves. So, Nestor, how do you feel about your personal Second Amendment rights? How do you feel about those? I agree with the Second Amendment rights. I think that we all have the right to bear arms. I mean, I agree with that. I'm for it. All right. I'm totally for it. You? How do you feel about it? I love the Second Amendment and I back it with all my heart. Let me ask you something. The Second Amendment was an amendment to the original Bill of Rights, right? It is part of the original Bill of Rights. An amendment to it. Yeah? It is part of the Bill of Rights. It is the original Bill of Rights. What was it amending? It was establishing our inalienable rights. No, my question is... To the Constitution. To the Constitution. It was an amendment to the Constitution. That's what the Bill of Rights is, Nestor. Yes, sir. Okay. So let's check this out. Well, let me ask a question. All right. So why is everybody so opposed to amending a change or changing or, you know... We were just coming out of a revolutionary war. We were just coming out of a war. No, no, I know. We had to establish our laws. No, no, definitely. That was back then. But right now, why are we so opposed? I'm just saying, I'm just saying, why are we so opposed to... Who's opposed? Well... Opposed to what? To altering the Second Amendment. Okay. No, we're not altering anything here today. Oh, we're not? Let me give you... Oh, okay. Sorry. Let me give you a quick... Let me give you a quick play of what Obama had to say on the campaign trail. Now, we all know Obama was very, you know, dishonest. Honest with a lot of the things that he said on the campaign trail. A lot of the promises he certainly didn't keep. So let's hear Obama's opinion on the Second Amendment. When y'all go home and you're talking to your buddies and they say, ah, he wants to take my gun away. You've heard it here. I'm on television, so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle. I won't take your handgun away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don't use that one. Because that just ain't true. Okay. So that's what he promised us all on the campaign trail. And we have experienced some situations that have certainly changed his outlook on gun control. Is he taking everyone's rifles away? I don't think that's what he's doing. Well, let's take a look at this. So what does all the gun control talk really about, man? And I say talk and not argue. We certainly not here to argue. Talk, talk, talk. But this is because the Second Amendment of the United States is crystal clear and could never be confused. So let me read the entire Second Amendment and then we'll discuss it. And I quote, A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a God-given or inalienable right to bear. And that shall not be infringed. So that's clearly what the Second Amendment states. Yeah, but I don't think I don't think he's taking away our right or proposing. I'm going to take exactly. We're going to go through exactly what he's proposing and what he's going to take away. OK, but the right what he's proposing to take away. That's right. Voted on. Right. Well, no, not under executive order. Now, the major changes that are made to our gun laws do have to run through Congress. But no, he can certainly do a lot of these things by executive order. OK, so the rights. These rights are not rights that are permitted or disallowed by any government, God-given or inalienable rights. So they're not permitted or disallowed by any government. These are your rights at birth as a human being, no matter what time period you live in. It also makes no difference if you believe in a creator or not, whether you want to use the religious ideology or the secular ideology. It's all the same. Does that make sense? It's making sense. Yeah. So how do you feel about inalienable rights or you having rights established when you're born? I think that all sounds great. I think that's great on paper. OK. OK. Well, let me explain it. And do you understand the difference between the secular versus the religion theologies and how that would work? Explain it to us. Well, let's take a look. So I get this. I borrow this from my favorite judge, Judge Napolitano. He's an amazing American and a true fighter for our American freedoms. He explained or all freedoms. Actually, judge is great. He explains it like this. Now, if you believe in the secular view of your inalienable rights, you may feel like this. So a lot of people do feel this. That I own my body and what it produces. I own the ideas that come out of me. I own what I produce by the sweat of my brow. And I own the thoughts I express. And I own the property and wealth that I can accumulate. Those are your inalienable rights. So that makes sense. Good luck with that. The religious view. Well, you have to stand for something. Sure, sure. So the religious view works like this. I was created in the likeness of an all-knowing God who is perfectly free. And I am in his image. And likeness. I have the freedom that he gave me because I was created in his image and likeness. So on one of those rights, your freedom depends on the approval of God. Yeah? Our freedom depends on the approval of God? We are individual. Okay, that doesn't make sense. No. We are created. That doesn't make sense. So we are created in the likeness of an all-knowing God who is perfectly free. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I am in his image and likeness, so I have the freedom that he gave me. Mm-hmm. It's crystal clear. So the- So, but this is, I mean, you have the freedom that he gave you. What's the difference between that and the secular view? There is no difference. That's what we're trying to get to the point. So whichever way you look at it, we all have the human right to protect ourselves with arms. Mm-hmm. And our Bill of Rights not only spells that out, but protects it against infringement. Right. So that's clear. Remember, the Second Amendment does not protect us from each other. It is protecting us from a tyrannical, a possibly tyrannical government. What do you think about God giving rights versus an alienable? We kind of went through that. But Nestor, should a government tell you whether or not you should be able to protect yourself? How do you feel about that? Well, I mean, it's a complicated issue. Seriously. It's like- Protecting yourself is not a complicated issue. Should the government tell me that I have the right to kill myself if I have a terminal illness? No, the question is, should a government tell you whether or not you should be able to protect yourself? It's a simple question. It's a simple question. Should a government be able to tell you when you have the right to protect yourself? No. Very good. I personally feel the same way. Well, I personally feel the same way. Yeah. I passed the test. I think most people do. Right. So let's listen to a funny clip. My friend Pedro Cuervo, he turned me on to the show many years ago from Penn and Teller. Let's listen to their take on the Second Amendment. This is kind of funny. So what does the Second Amendment actually say? A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's it. Not a lot of words, just very specific ones. Read the words. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, sure, you need an organized military force to defend your country, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the people. In contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people. Now, why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again. So they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. Now, gun control advocates say the phrasing is clumsy and the comma separating the state from the people is just a. Pause to get your breath. Right. So they're pretty good on that one. And they're they're clear. They have a firm understanding. I love Penn and Teller. That's a great show. I recommend you. I just love them. I think they're great. They're good guys. So all the Second Amendment stuff, we don't really have, you know, there's really not much more to go. It's just a very clear cut, concise part of our Bill of Rights. It said a well-regulated militia. Who regulates the militia? The regulation or regulated militia. Now, that would be in the hands of your government. So there is some sort of government enforcement. The organizers of the militia itself. Are you questioning? Are you questioning the words in the second? I'm questioning the origin. Obviously, we establish it had to do with the Revolutionary War. Right. And that's how we won the war. I mean, it was establishing our laws and freedoms to build the great country. That is America. That is the bill. That is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, my friend, in a nutshell. No, no. I got it. I got that. But I'm saying who regulates the militia? It says a well-regulated militia. And it is the Bill of Rights for which country? The United States of America. That would be your answer. So the government of the United States regulates the militia. That would be my interpretation of that. What do you think? Yeah. So then there is some sort of governmental regulation within that. The Bill of Rights are governmental regulations. Yeah. So the Second Amendment is really nothing to argue about. I'm not arguing. And I'm trying to understand it a little bit better. That's all. Well, what we'll do is we'll do a little study on that independently. And what you and I will do is come up with a definitive understanding of what the Second Amendment means. Okay. But it's very important to all of us, man, because it's our right to protect ourselves when our lives are in jeopardy. So let's just jump. Let's go to President Obama's plan. Now, this was interesting. This came out on Wednesday. And this was very interesting. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. So that was, pardon me, so our inalienable right to protect ourselves is not granted, but it's protected against infringement. And this makes the layers and layers of existing gun laws less and less constitutional. That makes sense, right? Right. But due to the extreme psychopathic events of Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado, the Obama administration is attempting to clamp down on the specific types of weapons you are available to protect yourself with and who is available to buy them. But those massacres are unimaginable, unnecessary and extremely wicked events that neither represent the Second Amendment nor represent any sane and rational gun owners. So those were complete psychopath madmen. We would like to express we have nothing but heaviness in our hearts and respect for the victims and the victims' families. We are in no way saying the slaying of your children was a conspiracy theory of any type or any type of government-sponsored act. This is not how we're treating these events. We want to be clear. These shootings were a national tragedy. And we pray for your families and that these type of incidents remain isolated events. But in the wake of these tragic events, President Obama decided he had a big enough crisis to not let it go to waste. So and how effective is the senseless murder of innocent children for garnering public support? What do you think? I mean, that's pretty much. I mean, what can they do if they support behind murdered children is obviously going to garner quite a lot of public support. I would hope so. Yeah. So today we report about Obama's. Plan to curb gun violence. Document was released Wednesday, the 16th, January 2013. Just this past Wednesday and was a direct result of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, Newtown, Connecticut. So the president says, which were horrible massacres. I mean, they were horrible events. How did the how did the the mass murdering psychopath from Sandy Hook acquire his weapons? I believe he got him from his acquired him from somebody in his family. His mother. I believe so. And his mother had license licenses to own those weapons. I have not the faintest idea. I believe she did. Okay. Yeah. Good. That's good. I believe she did. But he certainly didn't have that license or that right. So he was a complete madman. And certainly she shouldn't be held accountable for that unless they weren't locked up correctly. You have to be responsible. Unless they weren't locked up. Right. So the president plan includes closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands. That was number one. Number two, banning military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines and taking other common sense steps to reduce gun violence. Number three was making schools safer. And number four was increasing access to mental health facilities. The first page of the document clearly states the president strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms and not protect it. So our constitutional lawyer president is himself misrepresenting the Constitution. He also states that while no law or set of laws will end gun violence, it is clear that the American people want action. Even if one child's life can be saved. Then we need to act. Now this is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities and the country we love. So I ask you, the American people want action. It sounds like 51% deciding with the other 49% are having for dinner. You understand? That's democracy. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. Why not? Absolutely not. 51%? Yeah. So that's the majority. That's half of... That's democracy. Yeah. No, that isn't democracy. How is that? If there's a vote and there's 100 people and 51% is not voting. Yeah. And then some people say we're for it. In a democratic vote, 51 win. No? Not in my opinion, my friend. So let's look a little deeper into what President Obama is proposing to do with our guns here in America. We will just go right down the list. And on closing, background check loopholes or to keep guns out of dangerous hands. That's where he started. And this is actually a doctrine of legalizing pre-crime evaluations and or persecutions. It goes on to read, the single most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to have the Australian Government Because you're saying no criminal will go and buy their gun legally in a gun store. That's not necessarily true. A criminal who wants to murder someone. But that's not necessarily true. You're not going to buy it. Nestor, trust me. You're not going to, if you want to murder somebody, you're not going to buy a gun at a gun store and do it. There have been cases of premeditated murder where a gunman buys a gun illegally in a store and commits. And the way you found out about that case is he got caught. So he did the wrong thing. The report tells the National Instant Criminal Background Check System at 92% accurate to determine if somebody should be able to buy a gun. Obama repeatedly refers to the national polls that states, pardon me, that he states expresses the sentiment of most Americans. You know, through this whole thing, if you read it, all he's doing is referring to polls. And, you know, he didn't poll me or certainly ask anybody in my neighborhood. That's how presidents are elected, by polls. But he polls, well, it should be from voters. I agree. I agree. I agree. It should be from voters. So polls that he states expresses the sentiment of most Americans. But I urge you, check into these polls and find out the actual number of people polled. Do the math. And let's see if the polls represent the 315 million plus people in America. I seriously doubt that. But Obama is recommending a much stricter approach to background checks. In doing so, he seems to want medical professionals to violate their Hippocratic oath and inform authorities if they suspect their patients may be some sort of danger to society. This doesn't... This is not only applied to mental health professionals, but also clearly applies to your primary care physicians. It goes on to request that your doctor discuss any guns and gun safety with you to determine if you should be eligible to buy guns or if you are at least... Or if you at least pose a threat. A threat, of course, is a pre-crime. And you think that's... And you think that's... Horribly scary thing. And you think that's a violation of our rights to do that? Absolutely. Absolutely. Let me ask you something. Go ahead. When you have a therapist and you talk to a therapist... When you have a therapist and you talk to a therapist... When you have a therapist about abusing your child or wanting to commit suicide, it is your psychologist or therapist's legal obligation to report you. Because you're posing... I disagree with that legal obligation. Right. You disagree with it? That's a violation of your... I hear you. Of the Hippocratic oath which the doctor takes. But it's... But it's... But it is the way it is. It's the way it is, but that's what we're here to do. We're here to try to change the way it is. So how deep does... Hopefully. Well, we're trying. We're trying. So how deep does Obama want this gun check? And how many people should decide if I have the right to defend myself? It seems he wants as many cooks in the kitchen as possible. So I say doctors, lawyers, employers, coworkers, neighbors. And what about your credit rating? What if they went to your credit rating to determine if you should have a gun, right? Then blacks and Latinos wouldn't have any gun rights. You never know what they're going to pile on once this legislation begins. It's a slippery slope, my friend. That's true. So now the Second Amendment may come down to you being profiled by everyone in your life... Whether you're capable of committing mass murder and having that on public and private records forever. You got to think about that. That's horrible. Once you are determined to not have the ability to buy guns, is the search over or do you turn to the streets? You know, once again, if these are the criminal type and they cannot get the guns legally, they are going to find a way to get them. But they're not saying that you cannot buy guns. You can buy guns if you abide by certain legal standards. Correct. Correct. Correct. So they're not saying you can't buy. You can't buy guns. Okay. I urge you to study the plan in great detail. It is direct overreach by our government. A few more critical points and observations. The verbiage on this point is quite questionable. Make sure dangerous people are prohibited from having guns, not buying them. Having or buying is two different things. So does this mean that your mental care provider or somebody else in the snitcher's matrix, which is what they're building, can determine if you can keep your grandpa's gun? You know, the guns your family's held on to. They've held on to it for the last 40 years or so. And this collection of people are going to determine whether or not you should be able to keep them. Why? That's Obama's plan, my friend. No, no, no, no. Why? If you have your grandfather's gun, how are they going to find out? You put it on Facebook? That's your grandfather's gun. That's your gun. It's no one's business. Okay. That's a good question. Okay. So how would they know? All right. Right. How would they know? Well, that's part of the plan too. They want to register every gun, my friend. Yeah. Okay. So let's keep going. So we need to make sure our laws are effective. Okay. Okay. At identifying ... Well, this is from Obama, of course. We need to make sure our laws are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns. Again, reaffirming their quest for pre-crime persecution. So that's scary stuff. That sounds like Megan's law. Whenever there's someone who's remotely connected to some sort of sex crime, they get put on some website and everyone who lives within a mile or two radius has the right to know. That's good, man. It's good when you have kids to know that. Well, I mean, that's similar. Sure. That's a similar example. Yeah. That's a similar example there. Let me ask you a question. Would you like your doctor to determine if you are dangerous and or trustworthy to have access to guns? Once they determine you are dangerous and untrustworthy, what do they come for next? Your children? Your own freedom? There are questions. These are the questions you have to ask yourself. They're not going to stop at just buying guns, my friend. Well, let me ask you something. How do you find out if someone is a psychopath and has access to guns legally? How? Not the faintest idea. Well, I mean ... Be very careful though. But you have to come up with something. The thing in life, Nestor, is to not find out that somebody is a psychopath with a gun. That's the key. To not find out? That's how you stay alive. That's right. So, whoa, whoa, whoa. Explain that, because that was interesting. Stay away from psychopaths with guns. How are you going to stay away from psychopaths with guns when you don't even know who they are? And you want to go through life to learn that? I want to know, just like Megan's Law, for instance, I want to know ... Who's a psychopath? I want to know who's more likely to be a psychopath. Well, start your legislation, send it in, and we'll see what happens. Well, it sounds like that's what they're trying to do. Yeah. They do. Okay. All right. So, would you want your doctor to determine those things for you? Well, put it this way. Before I went to see my doctor, I'd get some medication so that I wouldn't appear as a psychopath, like a normal psychopath, right? So, my doctor, you got to keep your shit in check. If you can't keep your shit in check, then obviously you are a fucking psychopath and you shouldn't have a gun. So, Nestor wants the database of psychopaths. All right. Yeah. I want potential psychopaths. All right. I guess I'm with you on that one. All right. So, the next point is banning military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Now, statistically, high-capacity magazines and assault rifles account for 2% of gun deaths annually. So, let's check it out. So, large-capacity magazines are manufactured in many countries around the world and are easily smuggled and sold in the US. You know, they're smuggled in. You know, we sell all sorts of magazines here from other countries. The clips will no longer be legally available to you, but will be available to law enforcement and common criminals who can easily buy them. They're either on the streets or the internet. What do you think about large-capacity clips? They want to limit the capacity that we have here. They want to limit it all to what we have here in California, which is 10 round clips. Right. What do you think about clips? Well, that's a complicated issue. Well, magazines, that's what that's referred to. That's a complicated issue. Well, you want to have as many as you can. It's a complicated issue. And you could always have 10 of the 10 clip magazines. No, no, but I'm saying it's a... Keep loading a minute. This stuff is very, very... This is not all black and white stuff. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm completely against it. It's not black and white. Not for or against any... I am for the Second Amendment. No, no, no. Yeah, I got you. But the Obama thing, I'm completely against it. I got you. Okay. But I'm saying all the different nooks and crannies between it is... I mean, look, to answer... To give you an opinion about that, the North Hollywood shootout, right? Right. The police, the police, armed services, they didn't have access to the weapons that these guys had. Right. That's a perfect example. Well, those were illegal firearms. Right, right, right. But I mean... Still, and I would agree with that. The police should have at least had access to that. Well... No? Well, I think they were caught unprepared. Possibly LAPD at some point had access... No, no, they didn't have that access. Well, I mean, I've grown up in LA my whole life. They had to call SWAT. Yeah, right, right, right. So as soon as SWAT got there, then they had some sort of weaponry. In shorts. But I think the original responding officers had to go into a gun store and actually get the gun. They had to borrow some, right? Right. Which would support your argument. Which would support your argument. If you banned the legal sale of these types of arms, for instance, those LAPD, those local law enforcement... They wouldn't have been there. They wouldn't have been able to borrow guns. Okay. So they would have to look at that. You see what I'm saying? Sure. So that's a, you know, it's... It's a slippery... Let's just say that. It's... All right. Okay. So the next point is to give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. That's scary. So it reads, in order to prevent and respond to gun violence, we must give law enforcement every tool they need to keep us safe. That includes passing stronger laws to stop those who put guns in the hands of criminals. This would keep 15,000 cops on the street and eliminate restrictions that keep federal law enforcement safe. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. Let's have this happening every day. That could prevent an Aurora in Newtown. Think about that. They're claiming that they can provide our law enforcement with tools. Again, this is a flip side of what I just mentioned before, the North Hollywood shootout. So if the local law enforcement had access to those weapons, those two psychopaths, I don't know, they had artillery up the yin-yang. Right, sure. They wouldn't have been able to do anything had they had that tools, right? They would have had those weapons regardless of any laws we're speaking about today. But they didn't. They didn't. No, you mean the LAPD. No, the criminals involved would have had the weapons regardless. Right, right. But the local law responders, the first people to come are the local police. They didn't have it. Should a squad car, squad cars have shotguns, okay? And they all have their sidearm. Are you saying we need AR-15s or M-16s in these patrol cruisers? I don't think it's coming. That's a police statement. No, no, no, no, no. I get your point. No, no, no, I don't think they should have them. I don't think they should have them. Not on them. Not in their car. Not in their car. But they should be readily accessible to them. Okay. In the same way. I think they are now, sure. Are they? Sure. Oh. Okay. I hope so. So the tools necessary to prevent an Aurora and a Newtown, I don't think they exist because it is a random wacko that breaks into the family gun chest and goes rampaging through the streets. There will never be anybody or law who can stop that. Aren't the cameras, random checkpoints, SWAT teams, complete militarization of our police forces? Isn't that enough? Reading the gun plan, not for the Obama. I'm not with that surveillance shit, but unfortunately I got to have a surveillance camera in front of my house because people, you know, my neighbor's house just got broken into around three o'clock in the afternoon. Right. Right. So that's the best. That's when they do it. Of course. The best time. And he leaves his gate open and he has got no surveillance. I got to put my surveillance camera so I can see who's putting their dog shit in my, in my, in my trash bin. I mean, let me ask, let me ask you a question. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. drop to my knees, open the perpetrator's zipper and I'd suck his cock. So you would take it to a joke. Answer the question. No, I wouldn't take it to a joke. Answer the question. I'd be honest. Give me your honest opinion. If you had a gun to your head and the ability to call the police or grab a gun and prevent yourself from being killed, what would you choose? How would you call the police if you had a gun to your head? I would comply. So you'd be killed. Hold on. If I had a gun to my head, that's what you said. I'm giving you a choice. You have a gun to your head and you have the ability to grab a gun to protect yourself. Do you call the police and you have the ability to call the police? Do you call the police or do you grab the gun to defend yourself? I wouldn't call the police. I don't even know why you're thinking about it. Of course you would grab the gun and you would protect yourself. If you could, but if you have a gun to your head. That is the question posed. So the answer is gun or police. That's your answer. What do you think? If you say so. I'm answering for you. I'm pretty sure Nestor's going to grab that gun. Let me tell you something. In New York City, about 15 years ago, there was a white couple walking down the street. Two black guys came up and pulled out a .38 or some shit. The white kids robbed him of his money. The girl starts jumping and hitting the two guys, the two perps. The guy not only shoots the guy, her boyfriend, and then shoots her. Now, when someone has a gun to your head, it's very simple. You just comply. Do not comply, Nestor. Never do that. Don't go by that. They get shot. I would rather die than comply, my friend. If you have a gun on you and you can readily shoot the person, then chances are the gun wouldn't be to your head in the first place. We disagree on that. Obama and his administration want you to call the police in that situation and they will respond with all the new tools that this $4 billion program affords them. Now we're starting to get you. Right. Keep dreaming. $4 billion to increase your safety, my friend. But they're going to pull your weapons away. It's the same thing as the war to stop weapons of mass destruction. How much did we spend on that? Trillions. More cops, more guns for them, less guns for everybody else. That makes us safe? I don't believe that. This one is quite deceptive. Check this one out. Obama wishes for the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes for gun violence. That is potentially going to allow our government to call the pre-crime a potential gun-related crime. Syphilis. That's what causes. A disease. Got it? And what happens with disease? We are prescribed medications and the individual is lost to the world of pharmacopoeia and its industrial homicides. Well, I know herpes and syphilis causes gun violence. Never had those, my friend. You might know that. I do not have any of that information. I know a few guys who just went ballistic. They also point out the CDC or Center for Disease... should also look into the potential links between video games and visual violence in film and television. So they want to go to the First Amendment next. So you gotta watch out. And we won't have any guns to defend ourselves when they do come for that First Amendment. But these are not the points I again urge you to study or, pardon me, these are not all the points I again urge you to study and figure out what exactly it all means. And the next one is the most frightening. And this is probably the last one we're going to be able to get to. But it's making schools safer. Now that sounds like something that might be certainly topical since this is all a result of the massive school shootings. I know the answer. I know the solution. But Obama wishes to enhance their physical security. So what does that mean? That means x-rays, dogs, alarmed police officers, armed police officers, armed teachers, armed first responders. Obama also wishes to staff schools with mental health professionals, possibly facilitating these evaluating efforts to determine if you are a threat to society or just a normal functioning kid. Very sad. This is sketchy stuff. These snitching programs may be designed to actually remove your children if you or they are ever deemed a threat to society. So if you read into all the wording, you see it really affects more than just potential gun owners. This is what our government does. This is what our government always does in a crisis. They grab for all the power they can and all the control they can. It's a result of everything in the past. Newtown, Aurora, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9-11. They always grab the overreach for the power. So that's, I believe, what's happening here. So yes, they've come for your guns, forcing for your possible mental health conditions to be determined publicly and on record and outside of your control. So yes, they want... But what's the NRA's response to this? Have like heavily armed security guards in our school? I don't know. You need to check that out. Yeah, that's their response. Go to the NRA website. No, no, that's their response. They have full blown out ads about this. Then they agree. Then they agree with this part of it. And yeah, right? So if they want fully armed schools, they're saying what Obama's saying. So they're in agreement. No, no, they don't agree with that. They agree with armed guards not having x-ray machines or any of that stuff. Well, they want to turn the schools into airports, courthouses, or prisons, basically. You have to ask yourself those questions or ask these questions, Nestor. Do video games or movies make one crazier than say losing their mortgage? No, no. Or not being able to afford gas? Or not being able to pay for food for your family? Absolutely not. So the issues that the government really controls causes most of the insanity that these homicidal maniacs suffer from. But I'll tell you what video games do. Video games make people more prone to smoking large quantities of marijuana and then causing a lot of traffic congestion on the freeways because they can't pay attention to the driving. I would rather the video game users or players smoke marijuana because they would be less likely to go out and do any sort of suicidal rampage. I'm with that. I'm with that. So they came for the guns this time and they are clearly outlining all this CDC stuff that they're coming for the First Amendment next. They want to somehow find a reason for all of this to be happening. That's crazy. So that brings us to the next item. This is, of course, the Devil's In The Details radio show. So we do have to cover potential false flags. False flags have been used to take away our inalienable rights. Let's take a look at Obama's first attempt to alter the Second Amendment. This is the Operation Fast and Furious gun running scandal. So are you familiar with the Fast and Furious gun running scandal? No, no, no. I want you to school me on all that stuff. The red flags. I'm all ears. Okay. So the Fast and Furious gun running operation was an ATF gun running operation aimed to uncover large criminal gun running organizations in Mexico. An important point to Fast and Furious is that it was all done without the consent or knowledge of the Mexican authorities. The ATF facilitated over 2,500 assault weapons to enter Mexico illegally. So do you know what a straw purchaser is? Or do you know how that all goes down? School me. Well, people who are illegal to buy weapons in America... Who are legal. They can buy the weapons legally, and then they buy them and walk them across the border. Sounds good to me. So the stated aim of Fast and Furious was for the ATF agents to follow the passive guns from straw purchasers through middlemen and into the hierarchy of the powerful drug cartels. They tracked weapons... The tracked weapons were to be used as evidence to pin larger crimes against the cartel as they worked to break them up or at least eliminate the gun trafficking routes. According to whistleblowers and investigators, however, agents never made the attempt to actually trace the gun. So here's a few highlights of the Fast and Furious timeline. October 2009, the Department of Justice officials met to discuss the problem of Malibu. The Department of Justice decided to stop mounting violence in Mexico. They decided they needed to change their strategy aiming to eliminate gun trafficking pipelines. January 2010, agents with the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force are brought in to help the manpower include... Wait, are brought in to help, pardon me. The manpower includes investigators from the Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, and the DEA. So here's an important part to Fast and Furious, and this is the part we're going to focus on. December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry is in the United States. Terry is killed in a firefight while on patrol. The ATF would determine that two of the guns involved in the shooting came from Operation Fast and Furious. The operation continued again, or it went on, for another six weeks. Soon after Terry's death, ATF agents spoke with Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa to seek his help in stopping the operation. So that's pretty sad stuff. He was only a 40-year-old Border Patrol agent. Horrible information. Now it goes on. March 31, 2011, Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, subpoenas the Fast and Furious documents. January 15, 2011, Issa holds a congressional hearing bringing together officials, whistleblowers, and relatives of agent Brian Terry. July of 2011, the ATF director secretly meets with Issa and Grassley, explaining that the priority of the Department of Justice appears to be the protection of senior officials from political fallout. So it goes on to say that in November 2011, in congressional testimony, Holder admits for the first time that gun-walking was used in Fast and Furious. December 2011, documents reveal that some ATF agents discussed using Fast and Furious to provide ancidental cases to support controversial new gun laws. During the investigations, the Department of Justice refuses to turn over internal communications related to a letter, you know, part of this investigation, which denied gun-walking. Issa threatens Holder with a committee vote on contempt. So they were going to hold our Attorney General in contempt for not providing the information that would help this committee, you know, find out what was going on with Fast and Furious. They were being deceptive. So June 20, 2012, President Obama asserts executive privilege over the rest of the documents, you know, the rest that they didn't provide. And later that day, the House committee voted to recommend that Holder be held in contempt of Congress. So all this came to light by way of whistleblowers. No, whistleblowers. So what does all that have to do with the proposed gun control and gun reform? Fast and Furious was aimed at blaming our Second Amendment rights here in America on the gun violence in Mexico. And we'll kind of get to that. So it's blaming the Second Amendment rights. Right. So you're saying that that's one of the red flags why our current government is trying to kind of diminish or take our Second Amendment rights. This was a false flag. This was a false flag to try to blame the Second Amendment rights. Therefore taking it down. And provide more gun laws. Right, get it out. Right. So whistleblowers. So according to the written testimony of Supervisory Special Agent Peter Forcelli, ATF agents assigned to the Phoenix Field Division with the concurrence of their local chain of command walked guns, quote unquote. ATF agents allowed weapons to be provided to individuals whom they knew would traffic them to members of Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Through all of these investigations, we have learned that this operation had support in ways that, first of all, the U.S. Attorney General, was not aware of the fact that the gun was being used in Washington and that its tactics were not secret. Forcelli testified that the assistant U.S. Attorney Hurley helped orchestrate the operation and that U.S. Attorney Burke agreed with the direction of the case. President Obama defended his Attorney General Eric Holder by stating, my Attorney General has made clear that he wouldn't have ordered gun running into Mexico. That would not be appropriate step by the ATF. Now, appropriate step by the ATF. Now, that was a direct lie. He then deflected further questions by citing an ongoing investigation. So, who's our Attorney General? Eric Holder, born January 21, 1951. He's our 82nd Attorney General of the United States. He was appointed by President Bush and served as Acting Attorney General from January 2001 to the, and then he served as Deputy Attorney General prior to that, June 13, 1997 to January 20, 2001 under Bill Clinton. So, he served under Bill Clinton, President Bush, and now Barack Obama. So, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley sent Holder a letter asking for details about Operation Fast and Furious and that they would urge Holder to cooperate and turn over the subpoenaed records that would reveal the source of the government cover-up. But he didn't do that. They did provide 7,600 pages of documents that were released and they were like public emails. They weren't even the private messages to anybody involved. So, they didn't, the documents... So, what's the point of all this? The point of all, well, let's, let's, let's, we're learning about Operation Fast and Furious. That's, that, alright. Okay. Go ahead. Alright. So, Holder became defiant at the Oversight Committee stating that he had no more documents or information to give. Issa pointed out that the documents provided were from a public computer system and not from Holder's private email. So, that kind of was the key. And as a result of the Justice Department's lack of cooperation, the House of Representatives voted against it. The House of Representatives voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. So, this was the, the House approved a pair of criminal and civil measures against the Attorney General, making the first time in American history that the head of the Justice Department has been held in contempt by Congress. So, what do you think? Fast and Furious, a false flag aimed at allowing guns into Mexico. These guns cost many people their lives, you know, many Mexican citizens their lives, including a U.S. Border Patrol agent. All of this to blame our all... No one, hold on a second. No one cares about Mexican people's lives. I mean... I do. I do. I do too. Okay, so we do. But I'm saying, but the Border Patrol doesn't give a shit. So, what difference does it make? Well, we can't, we're not going to speak for the Border Patrol. Well, I, I, all right. Okay, and all of this... If they cared about it, we wouldn't be investing so much money in a wall to keep, keep them out in the first place. Okay, all of this to blame our already amended second amendment, attempting to blame American guns for violence caused by large-scale Mexican drug operations. So, they were really trying to blame us. They were trying to blame all the weapons we create in this country on all the violence that was going on in Mexico. And it backfired because we found out about the gun running operation from various people in our government being killed. So, we can only thank God that Fast and Furious failed. And we once again are able to learn about false flags and what our government is actually capable of doing. But in the, in this case, many lives were lost. So, like 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, of course, the people responsible must be held accountable. Good luck with that. Well, well, well, that's what we're here for, Nestor. We're truth seekers. No, no, no, I got you, I got you. We're not here to be pundits or argue. No, no, I got you. Okay, we're, we're, we're here to seek the truth. But good luck with that. That's what I'm saying. Well, if you don't believe in the fight, don't be part of it, my friend. So, let's check this out. I'm part of the solution, my friend. Okay. Not, not, not, not necessarily a fight. That's what I want to hear. Come on, come on. That's what I want. You know what I mean? That's what I need to hear from you. There's no fighting. I'm part of the solution. That's what I want. So, we are, we are, we are both a united team, part of that solution. Hopefully, hopefully. Yeah, hopefully. All right. I'm part of the solution. I'm trying to, I'm trying to get involved in how we can come to some sort of a solution to all of our problems. Okay, let's look at a hero now. An American hero. You, we would be remiss talking about gun control without talking about the next person on our list. That is Susanna Hupp. We would, you know, Susanna Hupp was born September 28th, 1959. She's a former member of the Texas House of Representatives. Who represented the traditionally Democratic District 54 for 10 years from 97 to 2007. This is the Luby's incident. This is the Luby's Massacre. All right, let's get with it. After surviving the Luby's Massacre in 1991, Hupp became a leading advocate for an individual's right to consider a concealed weapon, carry a concealed weapon. She was elected to her first term in 96. She's also the author of a book called From Luby's to the Legislature, One Woman's Fight Against Gun Control. That's an amazing book into her life. And I recommend everybody read that. Luby's. Luby's. Luby's is a cafeteria in Texas. This is one of the most heartbreaking stories you could ever hear. Where some psycho in a pickup truck crashed through the window and with a gun or a couple of guns. He had a Ruger and I believe a Glock. And he started shooting at people. And Susanna Hupp was there with her parents, her mother and father. Right. It was a mass murder that took place on October 16th, 1991 in Killeen, Texas. George Hnard crashed his pickup truck through the front door. He was shot in the back of the front of the cafeteria and then methodically shot 50 people, killing 23. Susanna was visiting the diner with her mother and father when Hnard drove his truck through the window. They all took cover under a table while he systematically started to execute the patrons in the restaurant. This was when Susanna reached for her .38 caliber revolver that she would sometimes carry illegally in her purse. Except. It was at that moment when Susanna realized she decided to leave her gun in the car. This was the decision that she regrets to this day. At that point she realized she was unarmed. Her father decided to rush the gunman to stop the killings. He was shot in the chest and mortally wounded. As he lay on the floor dying, her mother went to her father's side to support him in his last moments. Susanna states her mother wasn't going anywhere without her father, which is, well, without her husband, which is . . . So, so how is she a hero? The gunman then approached Susanna's mother and shot her point blank in the head, killing her instantly. Susanna witnessed the entire event. When police arrived, they fired a warning signal that she would be taken to the police. The police arrived in the area of the scene. They picked up the gun and shot her in the face. shot and Hernard fled to a back bathroom where he turned the gun on himself. Committed suicide. Thank goodness. But how is she a hero? Let's get to that. Well, what I would recommend you do, Nestor, is research and learn about Susanna Hupp and she is certainly an American hero. No, no, I'm not arguing the point. I want to know how she's a hero. Well, this left Susanna obviously incomplete. We certainly don't have enough time to go through all of Susanna Hupp's... Well, just in your own words, how is she a hero? Okay. Well, let's finish with what we're discussing here. She's an American hero because she fights for gun rights, my friend. Gun rights. Period. But let me ask you this. She reached for her gun. Yeah. And where was her gun? She left her gun in her car. That's irresponsible, man. Okay. Hold on. If you're a gun owner, now that's probably a problem with gun ownership in America. You're missing the point of the whole story. No, no, that is the point. It was illegal for her to carry the gun. So why did she have it in the first place? Because she, as I stated, she normally carries the gun illegally because the laws had recently changed. That allowed her not... She was not able to carry a concealed weapon. But she had a concealed weapon. Not on her person. No, it's nothing. This is certainly not an incident to argue about, man. I'm not going to argue whether Susanna Hupp is a hero or not. She went on to a successful political career and became a strong proponent of gun rights. She was a true American hero and here on the Devils in the Details radio show, I guess, Wyme Russell loves you, Susanna Hupp. I love her too, but pro-gun... We send you our best wishes and high hopes for a new year. We're not going to debate Susanna Hupp. Pro-gun activists will argue... She became part of the Texas legislature, my friend. Pro-gun activists will argue that had she had her gun on her, she could have prevented the massacre. Correct? She thinks she may have been able to save her parents' lives. Right. But here's the flip. And maybe save her own life. Here's the flip. There would be no flip. There is a flip. How about if somebody would have broken into her car and taken her, quote, unquote, illegal gun, and a psycho, for instance, and went on a shooting spree? I don't know. Of course not. Of course not. So let's... It's really not a pundit thing. It's not a counterpoint thing. We're not here to argue. But there's opinions. But there's opinions. And there's two sides to every story. Do you own a firearm? I do not own a firearm. Do you own a firearm? Yes, I do. And I think I understand where you're coming from. So tell me about your firearm ownership. Do you have it loaded in your house? Nestor, if you don't have your weapon loaded, then you're not ready to... Let me ask you a question. Is it legal to own a gun loaded in your house? I'm just... Now, I'm ignorant to this. I'm asking you a question. Is it legal to own a loaded gun and have it in your home? Yes. Nestor, the answer is yes. Okay, perfect. You have a daughter, right? Yes. Is your gun locked? Yes. Okay, perfect. So... Okay, Nestor. Nestor, we're not here to talk about my family. No, we're here to talk about the two sides of the story, as far as I'm concerned. Just one side? We're here to discuss events relating to Obama's gun control plan. But there are two sides to everything, not just one side. We are not on different sides of that. We are. On some points, we are. We are. Let's do it. Let's just let the air settle. You've just taken about 25 minutes talking about facts. And let's get to our newest segment. Let's get to our newest segment. This is where you're going to get to shine now, man. So maybe you can use some of this energy you have and share it with... Dude, dude, dude. ...our next segment, which is... You ready? Are you ready? This is all leading up to this. Well... I'm ready. Go ahead. Well, what we were trying to do is ignore... I'm ready. ...go through the cases as we normally do... Go for it. ...and then get to a point to where you can just rage about gun control... Go for it. ...and have all of your own special opinions. Go for it. You ready? Yeah. All right. You should have done this shit like five minutes ago. Okay. All right, man. All right. Oh, so you lost all your energy? You're not ready? No, no. I got plenty. Hit it. I got plenty. Go for it. Well, first of all, you're talking facts. New York lawmakers on Tuesday approved the... ...the... ...the toughest gun control law in the nation, expanding the state's existing assault weapons ban and addressing gun ownership by those with mental illnesses in the first major legislative action in response to the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre. See, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms wholeheartedly. I believe in that. But I also believe in the responsibility that comes with owning a weapon, of bearing arms. That is the issue in this country. Unfortunately, we have way too many citizens in this country, citizens of the United States, who are irresponsible. Irresponsible. And as a result of certain people's irresponsibility, powers greater than us unfortunately have to take control and enforce, you know, and regulate people who cannot take responsibility, who are not responsible. Okay? You have the Newtown, Connecticut specifically. The mother of the kid had legal weapons in her arsenal. And how did her son have access? They weren't locked. Or he had access to them because he broke into them. It's not necessarily clear. But in my opinion, it's irresponsibility of the gun owner. And she should be tried for manslaughter. I'm sorry. She should be tried for manslaughter. If she didn't have those weapons in her arsenal, her mental challenged, psychotic son would have not gone in there, taken the guns, and committed the fucking massacre. That's my thing. You know, this whole gun debate becomes, you know, Republican versus Democrat, right wing versus left wing bullshit. It's a human issue. Okay? It's a human issue. And we all have the right to be safe in America. The pro-gun activists believe that the only way you can be safe in America is by having guns. The left or the people who are liberal believe that violence begets violence. Okay? I believe that certain things need to be regulated. The problem, one of the main problems is that we can't tell who's a psycho. We can't tell who's a psycho. There needs to be some sort of background check and psychological background check. Does that mean that I'm going to give up my rights to a doctor to say I'm mentally, you know, unfit to buy a weapon? Maybe. Maybe. Unfortunately, because there are a couple of people who cannot be responsible for themselves to carry a gun, we all have to pay the price. Unfortunately, I mean, I don't necessarily agree with all that stuff, but that's the way, you know, it's come down to. I'm going to, real quick, within a minute, I'm going to read some of the new Firearms Enforcement Act that New York City passed. Bans, the act bans possession of any high capacity magazine regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to ten rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge. That's not, that's misdemeanor is bullshit. I can just run over, you know, not pay my fare in the subway and I'd get a misdemeanor charge. The act also requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts to the state. Intended sales of ammunition, are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York State for pickup. Anyway, Google... Wow, alright, wow. Boy, take a breath, man. Nestor without a net. Google New York Texas Major Gun Control Law, first since Newtown Massacre. Do I have enough energy? New York is horrible as far as gun... Well, you were certainly compassionate or passionate, pardon me, on that subject. I knew you had a lot of energy. I got it. We got one more thing we need to do today, but you know what? We're going to save that for the next show. Nestor, I appreciate all your energy and your feelings regarding gun control, but what it really all comes down to is your right to protect you or your family with every weapon that the government has at their disposal. Absolutely. Another thing about the Second Amendment, you have to remember that it is about protecting ourselves from the government and not from each other. You know, that's another point. That's another point and why the Second Amendment came into play, right? Because the NRA says, if we did not have the same type of weapons that the current government at the time had, we would have never won the Revolutionary War, right? Say that again? If we didn't have the same type of weapons or guerrilla tactics that the government back when the Revolutionary War was fought, we would have never won. Here's my argument with that. Back then, there were 13 colonies. There weren't that many people, which means there probably weren't that many psychopaths, okay? So now, you've multiplied our nation, you've multiplied our population, so we don't have the same trouble. More people, more guns, more trouble. And we don't have the same issue, man. The truth is, we're not going to fight our government. We can't even agree on just one issue. Nestor, thank you for joining me today on our Gun Rights show. I'm glad. Glad you have strong opinions. Please join us next week here on the Devils in the Details radio show. We'll see you next week.