Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 3 | Guns, Government & God: Why I Fight for 2A

Episode Date: March 28, 2018

As the media breathlessly fawns over "March for Our Lives" gun control advocates, Second Amendment supporters are demonized as child murderers. Not only is that depiction inaccurate, it's immoral: I'm no "gun nut;" you're probably not either, and falsely slandering us as such does damage to society as a whole. Here's the truth about the Second Amendment, those who support it, and why it all matters.

Welcome back to Relatable, everyone, where I, your host, Ali Stucky, discuss the most relevant topics from a conservative, millennial, and biblical perspective. Today, we are going to talk about, drum roll please, guns, everyone's favorite topic. So let's go. Let's talk about guns, baby. Let's talk about you and me. For those of you who don't know, this podcast is a part of CRTV.com, where you can find me as well as a bunch of other conservative commentators and where I post several videos every week. So I asked my social media followers over the weekend what you all would like me to discuss on this week's podcast and I got a lot of great suggestions. There are literally so many things that I want to talk about today. I'm like overwhelmed.

I like I really want to talk about that really stupid and absurd and irresponsible spending bill that makes it hard for me to justify ever voting for another Republican again. And I might touch on that at the end of this podcast, might not, it might need to be a whole episode for a different day. I also want to talk about the California Supreme Court case involving abortion and free speech, but I wanted to listen to what you all wanted. And many of you asked that we talk about guns, the Second Amendment, and this whole march for our live thing that happened this weekend.

And in light of the insane tension and the disagreement that surrounds this issue, I thought it would be good to try to add some Christian millennial conservative clarity to the conversation. First, let me back up and tell you kind of who I am in relation to guns. I am not what you would call a gun fanatic, whatever that means, although I don't think that's a bad thing if you are. Because if you are what people call a gun fanatic, I think that's awesome. I just personally am not one of them. My husband and I recently became gun owners and I am right now in the middle of a plund.

for my license to carry. I have shot guns a handful of times. I didn't really grow up around guns, even though I grew up in Texas where I'd say guns are a part of our culture. My dad owned guns growing up, but I really never saw them unless he was hunting, which he and my brothers did pretty regularly. So I guess I saw guns and I never really thought about it. But honestly, guns weren't really something that we talked about or even thought about growing up. And really only in the last few years did my parents start carrying guns and none of my close friends even right now carry guns. So this whole idea on the left of the Second Amendment of Second Amendment advocates being gun nuts who care more about guns than children is so frustratingly stupid because it's just not true.

I don't really care about guns. I care about the right to defend myself however I want to. And I care about what that right stands for, which is individual. liberty. I care about the Second Amendment because I care about liberty, not because I care about guns. The only reason guns are at all important to me is because they are the means by which we get to protect our liberty. I mean, you've probably heard before. There is no First Amendment without the Second Amendment. And that is true. We have no ultimate ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government who would wish to take away our right to free speech and religious expression and all of that if it were not for our right to bear arms. And this is true of any of our rights, actually.

They are all protected by the Second Amendment. Privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures, et cetera. And I don't mean this in the sense that like if we found out that a government official spied on our browsing history that we'd get to go to their house and shoot them. I mean that in a bigger and like I said ultimate sense. I mean that a government who wishes to completely subdue its people wouldn't be able to easily do that if the people they're trying to subdue our well-armed. We would be able to form a militia even, which is a group of non-professional soldiers, and we would be able to take up arms and defend our freedom, theoretically, from the tyranny of the government. Now, of course, we might not be able to win, but we'd have the ability to

fight for our rights in a very tangible sense. Now, okay, you might be thinking, that sounds apocalyptic, or totally far-fetched. We would never have to defend ourselves against the government, But for those of you who say that, like you do realize it's how we all got here, right? Like you do realize that our independence from the tyranny of England was accomplished by use of guns, that it was weaponry that allowed us to defeat a global superpower. Guns were the means by which we achieved freedom. And to people who say, well, that was hundreds of years ago. That's irrelevant today.

No, the nature of tyranny does not change. Culture changes, technology changes. but the nature of power and the tyranny that always arises from the growth of power do not change. We should fear government overreach and tyrannical rule probably more than ever. The only difference between then and now is that they then feared another government and now we fear ours. The founders knew, though, about the propensity of any central government to take on too much authority. They knew the immutable nature of tyranny, which is why they recognize people's God-given rights to defend themselves against it. So just some factoid about the Second Amendment, just in case some of you

have forgotten. It is the second of the 10 amendments to the Constitution altogether called the Bill of Rights, ratified by Congress in 1791, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. That's what it says. A militia was a group of volunteers, so men from the community who were able to come together, inform an informal army. The idea was that the federal government shouldn't be the only ones to be able to form an army because that could easily lead to oppression. Obviously, that part of the Second Amendment has been contested, and that looks a little bit different today. We don't know of very many militias that are formed. James Madison was the one to propose the Second Amendment in order to empower the states

and to quellish many of their fears about a too powerful central government. The spirit being that the government would not be allowed to disarm its citizens. So when we look at the Second Amendment from that context, it's really hard to argue that it meant anything other than the idea that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves and that the government cannot stomp on that right. Nevertheless, there has been a debate on the scope and really the true meaning of the Second Amendment literally, probably since 1791, because people disagree on what it means to have a regulated militia. What does it mean that citizens can keep and bear rights without infringement? What is it infringement?

look like. Some, though not really many anymore, and the gun control crowd, take the whole regulated militia thing to mean that the Second Amendment doesn't necessarily apply to all individual citizens, but rather applies to organized military groups. Obviously, the gun rights crowd points to the line that says literally the right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed, and they say, no, it clearly includes all individuals. And considering the spirit, of the creation of the Second Amendment, the fear the states and the people had of government tyranny and the oppression of federal force, it's hard to see why the Second Amendment would limit the right to bear arms to organize military groups rather than individuals. But still,

the debate lives on and is probably a lot more complicated than that. Much of the complexity regarding the Second Amendment has to do with Supreme Court rulings on the issue that brought up the question of whether or not the Second Amendment is to be upheld by the federal government or whether or not it's protected or taken away by state governments. This has to do with the 14th Amendment, which includes a due process clause, which is used against the states when it comes to what authority the state has, apart from the federal government to enact laws. For a long time, the Supreme Court held that the second amendment is not included by the

due process clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning that it's not a federal issue and so could be limited and regulated by the state. Presser v. Illinois in 1886 is an example. But then in 2008, in D.C. versus Heller, the court ruled that D.C.'s ban on handguns was unlawful as it infringed on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Then in 2010, McDonald v. Chicago ruled that your Second Amendment rights are included in the due process clause. Therefore, no state can fully infringe upon your right to own a gun. Now, obviously, every state has different laws regarding how difficult it is to own or carry a gun or where you can carry a gun, and that varies depending on, where you live. But there really is generally no question about whether or not the Second Amendment does indeed include an individual's right to possess a firearm, a right that courts have

ruled should be protected by the federal government per the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. But the ongoing debate is what should the limitations be on this individual rights? Now, there are already many laws on the books regarding guns, background checks, limitations for the mentally ill, licensing to carry a gun, there are age limits for a particular, using guns, especially particular kinds of guns. But in general, compared to the rest of the world, it's true that our gun laws are pretty lax. That is because in the United States, unlike in other countries, we believe that the right to defend ourselves how we see fit, as is outlined by the Second Amendment, is a God-given right. And in fact, every single one of our rights

recognized in the Constitution, the founders believed were God-given inherent rights. And as we conservatives know unbelief if rights are inherent rather than man-made, then they cannot be taken away by man or institutions made by men, i.e. the government. So all of this to say, that is why I personally fight for the Second Amendment, because it was the amendment set up to ensure the protection against the infringement of all of our other rights. It is the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I also think it's important to note that I don't believe that everyone has to own or carry a gun. I think that you can be a freedom-loving conservative patriot without owning a firearm. Second Amendment advocacy means fighting for the choice of people to defend themselves how they see

fit and fighting against forced defenselessness. But unfortunately, this line of thinking is nowhere to be found in most mainstream media coverage of the gun debate, and in particular in the coverage of the March for Our Lives, which happened Saturday. What we saw were hundreds of thousands of young people across the country with clever anti-NRA, anti-gun signs, pushing apparently for stricter gun control. And these protests were depicted as revolutionary, as monumental, as heart-wrenching, as an inarguable testament to the cruelty of guns, gun owners, and the NRA. Ima Gonzalez and David Hogg are two students at Snowman Douglas High School who witnessed the tragedy, and unfortunately, very unfortunately, they have been turned into media puppets. Perhaps

by no fault of their own. I mean, they are 17 years old. Emma Gonzalez made a speech in which she made waves for standing on stage in silence to honor her fallen classmates. And I won't lie, I watched that. And it was extremely compelling. I mean, I cried whether or not I agreed with her argument is kind of irrelevant. The loss of life is tragic. David Hogg also made a speech defending the right to live. And they were all hailed as heroes, as vigilantes, as young leaders on the right side of history, showing that, of course, everyone who disagrees with them, well, we are child murderers. We are crazed fanatics who care more about guns than kids. I mean, seriously, I'm not exaggerating. If you just log on Twitter, you will see that dichotomy depicted everywhere.

Mainstream, random people, celebrities, it's people who are on the side of gun rights. We are murders, people who are on the side of gun control. They are on the right side of history. But from what I have told you about my perspective on guns, do I sound like a crazy person who wants kids dead? Do I sound like someone who is so obsessed with AR-15s that I can't possibly give them up? No, of course not. I sound like someone who cares about freedom and self-defense and people. And guess what? I probably represent about 99% of Second Amendment advocates. And you know what? Even the 2A supporters, I know who are obsessed with guns and genuinely just love firearms and gun culture are not what the media is depicting them to be. They are moms, their dads, their bosses,

students, caretakers, all different kinds of people who just happen to be passionate about their freedom to defend themselves how they see fit. I know rape, survivors, assault victims, women who work night shifts and have to walk to their cars alone, women training for races that require them running early in the morning. These are your average people, people just like you, who would rather not wait around until they are the next victim, who would rather take their life and protection into their own hands. That's it. And these so-called gun fanatics are literally,

literally the most responsible people I know. You want to know who takes the law seriously, law-abiding gun owners. If you've ever been to a gun range, you know how incredibly obsessive the trainers are about gun safety. Have you ever been around a gun owner? expert, it accidentally pointed an empty gun the wrong way, you will be absolutely lampasted. They will yell at you. They will tell you to put the gun down. Why? Because law-abiding gun owners

know better than anyone else that every time someone makes a mistake or makes a bad decision with a gun, their own Second Amendment rights are at stake. We who stand up for the Second Amendment are not these heartless gun nuts. We are people who want the right to protect ourselves and our families, how we want to protect them. And the media and the gun control crowd on the left are demonizing us to drive their gun control agenda. This entire narrative that gun owners and the NRA, who stands up for the rights of gun owners, are to blame for mass shootings is just not accurate. It is purposely deceitful and immoral. Do you know how many people the NRA has murdered? Zero. Do you know how many people NRA members have murdered? Zero. In fact, if you remember Sutherland Springs that shooting down in

Texas at a church a few months ago, the man who stopped the shooter with his gun was an NRA member. Imagine that. It took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Who would have thought? The only people to blame for mass shootings are the shooters themselves. Not the millions of people who own and use guns responsibly. Why? Why would we punt? punish everyone for the actions of a few people rather than addressing the real problems at hand, like the deadening of morality in this country, the deterioration of the family, loneliness, depression, isolation, mental health, all these things we know for sure make someone more likely to commit acts of violence on themselves or in other people. And by the way, just a plug here,

I have written about these things on my blog, the conservative millennial blog, have talked about how the deterioration of the family and fatherlessness is linked to crime and mass shootings and depression. So make sure to go check that out. I won't spend all of my time explaining it right now. But, I mean, considering all of these things and saying all of this, I am not saying that I am completely against any regulation of guns. I don't think people with a history of serious mental illness should be able to own a gun, as long as those specifications of mental illness are clear. I don't think criminals should be able to own guns, especially domestic abusers. I believe in background checks, even very thorough background checks. And these regulations and protocols are

already in place in most places. And actually, there's one thing that I think that we need to change here in Texas. In Texas, if you buy a gun, they do a background check before you can pick it up. But if they don't get back to you in three days, then you can pick up the gun, no question. No questions asked. That to me is weird. I think the background check should have to be completed before you can pick up your gun. So I'm not against logical and minimal regulation of guns. I simply don't think that making our gun law stricter and stricter is going to decrease the loss of life. Not sure if you knew this or not, but criminals commit crimes. That's what they do. They are not hampered by gun free zones as we saw when the Bernie Sanders supporters shot and nearly killed Republican congressman Steve Scalise.

They are not afraid of regulations and laws. If they were, they wouldn't be out shooting people in the first place. They will find a way to get a gun and they will find a way to break the law. That is the nature of crime. And if you look around the world in our most dangerous cities, the ones at the top of the list, do not have the most lax gun laws. Of the 50 cities with the highest murder rate in the world, 41. 41 are in Mexico and South America.

You can go to gun policy. and you can look at all of their gun laws in Mexico in South America, and you will see that their gun laws are extremely strict. So Los Cabos, Mexico is the murder capital of the world with 111 murders per 100,000 people in 2017. Caracas, Venezuela comes next, and then Acapulco, Mexico. Those are the top three. In Mexico, all guns are purchased through the Ministry of Defense, meaning there is only one place to purchase a gun. A fulfillment of military duty is required. Only one handgun is permitted for home defense. In short, guns are not easily legally accessible in Mexico. There are only about 15 guns per capita in Mexico compared to the United States is 101.

And still, clearly not safer. In South America, the gun laws vary but are generally very strict. In Venezuela, for example, you have to cite a genuine reason to purchase a gun in order to buy one. That's true in a lot of places, actually. Same thing in Brazil. And the possession of handguns there is prohibited. Venezuela only has about 10.7 guns per capita. capita and Brazil only has eight. And guess what? It is not safe to live in those countries.

But of course, the left doesn't cite these countries when we are debating guns. They bring up Australia and Great Britain as models that we should follow. Okay, well, Australia should give you a really good picture of what the left wants in America. In Australia in 1996, they confiscated. They took away hundreds of thousands of guns. And even though it has been cited that guns, homicides and suicides decreased during that time or after that happened, both of those things were already decreasing before the confiscation and there is really no proof that the confiscation had a direct effect on the continued decrease of so-called gun violence. In Great Britain, it is very difficult to get a gun. Most police officers don't even carry guns and yet it was chronicled last year

by the Office for National Statistics in the UK that London had surpassed New York City and crime raid saturated with burglary, with murder, and with rape. And you remember in 2017 when there were three separate terror attacks in London by men driving in vans? A few of these things probably could have been stopped by armed police officers, don't you think? These places are not necessarily safer because of stricter gun laws. There just isn't evidence to prove that. They might have fewer mass shootings, but there is no proof saying that because of their stricter gun laws, the citizens of these places are less susceptible to violence. But it doesn't really matter. These facts, they don't matter because that is where the left wants us to go in the direction of Australia, who literally took guns away

from people in Great Britain where not even the police officers are armed. And with 310 million guns in America, the only way that would be possible would be through military force, going door to door, demanding our guns. That ain't going to happen. And that is the very thing the founders sought to protect us from by writing the Second Amendment. See, they say that's not what they want, that they don't want to take away our guns, that they just want common sense gun laws, whatever that even means. That's usually how they start the conversation. But the thing is, they end the conversation every time without fail by saying, well, why do you even need a gun anyway? Exactly. That's what I thought. That is the core of their plan, this skepticism that anyone would even

need a gun. Why would I even need a gun? I posted a video with a Amy Robbins, who is the CEO of Alexo Athletica, a concealed carry at leisure line for women. And she was showing me all of the places in these leggings that she designed where someone can carry a weapon. And the comments that I got from leftists, that we are paranoid, crazy, that is totally unnecessary, yada, yada, yada. We're absolutely insane because it's amazing to me. It's amazing that in the age of Me Too, when sexual assault and harassment has been placed center stage where we're talking about it all the time, anyone in their right mind would ask someone, especially a woman, why she would need a gun.

Someone on Instagram told me that, well, if no one had a gun, then I wouldn't need a gun to defend myself. Okay. So you're telling me that if a 200-pound guy unarmed followed me to my car in a parking garage one night, say he had a knife or say he had a court or maybe he just had his bare hands. If he followed me one night, that I would be able to fight him off. I mean, I do pure bar so I mean I can I can do a plank for 90 seconds but I don't think that I am quite strong enough to beat up a man even a man that's 150 pounds I wouldn't be able to do it okay so their typical response to that is well why not use a knife or pepper spray and my first response is obviously I have to get a lot closer to him to use either of those things and chances are he's going to overpower me before I use

them so they're probably not going to be very effective and that leads to number two a gun even just brand a shina gun is a far greater deterrent than those things. And then number three, why do you care what I want to use to defend myself? Whether it is a gun or silly string, why shouldn't I be able to choose how to protect myself? Which leads to this next point of absolute hypocrisy within the gun control crowd. And that is this concept of choice. The left is all about choice, especially for women, when it comes to gender, when it comes to whatever flavor of sexual promiscuity we want, choosing to dismember babies inside the womb. But choosing to defend ourselves with a firearm?

How dare you? I mean, really, the hypocritical rhetoric about abortion from the left that they refuse to apply to self-defense with a gun is amazing. They say, your body, your choice. If you don't want one, don't get one. It's a personal choice for women. It's a health. decision. Okay. So you're telling me, each of these arguments work for abortion, the express purpose

of which is to kill a person, to kill an unborn child, but not for the possession of guns, which can be used for many things other than killing innocent people? No, no, no, no, no. First of all, the idea that abortion is nothing more than a healthcare decision is straight up stupid and unscientific. It's murder, but we won't get into that right now. The point is that the leftist gun control crowd somehow thinks that me. A law abiding citizen. Owning a gun for protection is somehow a threat to society. That's why I shouldn't have the choice.

When in reality, it's probably going to protect me at some point in my life. And it's probably going to protect you too if you're around me. So I public speak a lot. And when you're on stage, any of you who have been on a stage, you know that the light sometimes can be really bright and you can't see the back of the room. and I have this kind of fear. I get a little bit freaked out that someone's going to burst in and shoot me or something like that.

But you know where I'm the least scared of a bad guy with a gun? I'm least scared when I'm speaking in Texas to groups of Republicans. When I am in Texas speaking to conservatives, I literally have no fear of someone coming in with a gun because I know there are at least 10 good guys with guns who are probably even specially trained to deal with an emergency scenario like that. that. I'm most scared when I go to California or New York or D.C. where I know no one will be armed except for potential attackers. But again, this perspective, that kind of fear that especially women have and that confidence that we have when we are around guns and when we are around good

people with guns, that doesn't get coverage. It's not the same coverage, at least, that this whole march for our lives did. Instead, we are seeing teenagers hailed as heroes only because they are driving home the media's preconceived agenda, not because they actually know what they're talking about. Now, I will say, I am glad that these young people have this right of free speech and or exercising it. Even if I disagree with them, I believe in their right to stand up for what they believe in. But what these kids don't realize, it seems, is that they would not have this right if it was not for the Second Amendment. Not just in the constitutional sense, but in a very tangible sense, the protests, if you saw on TV, were manned by armed guards and security.

But unfortunately, they and so many people on the left are completely blind to that hypocrisy. And no matter how hard we try to get them to open their eyes, they refuse to, no matter how much we talk about moral relativism, the breakdown of the family, fatherlessness, mental health, they still refuse to loosen their grasp on the hope that they will be able to get people to get people to get, up their guns as a solution rather than talking about all the problems underneath. Now, for the Christian perspective on this, this is a podcast that promises to kind of give you a biblical understanding or at least talk through my biblical understanding of current issues. Well, I'm not going to pretend like there is a specific verse in the Bible from which the second amendment is derived. Thou shall arm yourselves is not in the Bible. And just for the record, I don't think being for gun control is antithetical to Christianity and the way that I think

being pro-choice is antithetical to Christianity. I think that you are wrong logically if you're for more and more gun control, but I don't think that it is unbiblical necessarily to be a gun control advocate. The gun argument really has a lot more to do with how you view humans and our rights than it does a specific passage in the Bible. I simply believe that it is innate in each of us to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities, rather than rely on the government, something that has proven itself unreliable. When we start relying on the government to take care of us and to protect us, we end up in trouble. Every totalitarian regime has begun by people giving up their means of protection. You think Hitler or Mao or Stalin allowed their people to be armed? And we

know how that ended up. Murder, torture, and immense pain and suffering. I tweeted this weekend that you know you've hit peak first world privilege when you are protesting to have your rights taken away, which is exactly what is happening here. Whether cognitively or not, these protesters over the weekend were asking for rights to be taken away rather than given to them. They were asking for more government control and more government dependence. And in general, more government dependence actually leads to godlessness. Just look at literally any country, the more government rule there is, the less freedom of religion there is, the less people are free to worship God because he is replaced by whoever is in authority. I mean, look at us. Look at the United States. Over the past 200 years, we have continually

drifted away from what was founded as a country on Judeo-Christian ideals. And our government has grown exponentially. People now trust the government far more than they do God or church. And I imagine that would only get worse if we start allowing our government officials and police officers to be basically the only people armed while the rest of us suffer under the tyranny of forced defenselessness. Of course. Now, seeing all of this, I obviously have very strong opinions about this, but what we know for absolutely sure, what is in the Bible that I can say with absolute confidence, and is that one day there will be no need for self-defense. There will be no abuse, no violence, no death, no terrorism, no murder, no school shootings, no arguments about gun control, no vitriol in the

media. One day there will be complete and total peace, joy, satisfaction, and healing. We will no longer be divided. We will no longer feel any hate. We will not fear. We will not be fragmented or broken or left wanting. We will be whole. When Jesus returns, when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, when he defeats sin and death once and for all, when there's a new heaven and a new earth, and when every person the Lord has called to himself will enjoy him forever and ever. All of this chaos will be gone. The truth is, no matter how many conversations about this we have, no matter how many marches we have, the world isn't going to get any better. Politics will get crazier. Danger will increase. We will always wonder how much

worse the world can get for our children and our grandchildren. But that's, that's okay. Jesus told us, in this world, you will have trouble, but take heart because I have overcome the world. Even though these conversations are, I think, very important, even though I believe it is crucial for Christians to shed light into dark spheres of politics and culture, ultimately, our hope is not in this life. It's in the next one. And everything we do and say is to that end. Our encouragement, our motivation, our satisfaction right now comes from knowing that one day all will be made new and we will no longer have to talk about these things because we will be forever completely content worshiping Jesus together. Okay. That concludes that part of my podcast.

Okay. I have one last part. This is a new segment. I'm trying new segments at the end of the podcast every week because why not? Last week, my last segment was called Things I Just Don't Get and I talked about how I just don't get fashion bloggers and lifestyle bloggers, how they do what they do, considering I can't manage to brush my hair in a single day. There's a lot of things I just don't get. So I'm probably going to do that segment a lot. And if there are things that you don't get, I want you to email them to me because I'll probably think they're really funny and maybe I'll share them. But this week I have a new segment and this segment is called Confessions. And if I could play Usher's Confessions right now without copyright infringement, I would, but I can't.

So I'm not even going to try to sing it. I tried to sing at the beginning of this podcast, and I already listened to it. It's bad. I'm not going to sing again. But this is where I will confess something to you that I have been really bad about and that I'm seriously going to get better at and hopefully be sanctified through. So in Allie World, there are two kinds of sass. There is biblical sass. And there is unbiblical sass. Biblical sass is like Jesus to his disciples, like all the time. Like when they didn't get a parable and he would be like, dude, do you like not remember this prophecy that I'm clearly talking about right now? Like how do you not get this? Or when he overturned the tables

and the temple. That is biblical sass. Biblical sass is like righteous anger or even using sarcasm to make a legitimate point. Unbiblical sass is what I am. supremely guilty of. It is used to make people feel stupid for saying something really stupid. Like, are you an idiot or are you dumb because you didn't really just actually say that? See, that's really me. And I do that a lot, actually, especially in the past few days, because I've seen some really, really idiotic comments on gun control. And I just, I just can't resist sometimes. And I just. I unleash this unbiblical sass. And let me tell you, I have always struggled with this.

I think that I learned how to speak sarcastically before I learned how to speak literally. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it's not good, though. But it is always funny. No, I'm just kidding. No, actually, it is. But what I've learned sometimes, and maybe this is a lesson for all of us, sometimes I have to sacrifice humor for godliness. And it's actually really even hard for me to say that because it makes me sad. But seriously, I'm biblical sass. Is my cross to bear? And I give you guys permission to call me out on it. But please do it nicely because I might be kind of sensitive about it. But seriously, speaking the truth and love is what we are called to do. Sometimes sarcasm, sarcasm is an effective tool. But a lot of

times it just makes people feel dumb. And that should not be what I'm about. I seriously, I seriously sometimes like, ah, my responses, I'm like, oh gosh, I can't believe that I just said that. That was really mean and that was totally not Christlike and that was totally ungodly. It's really sad actually how politics and the internet can bring that out in each of us. But as Christians, we are called to be salt and light, not to be sass and mean. So I'm really going to try to get better at that rather than just like unleashing my hinged sassiness to people sometimes who just say stupid things on the internet. But anyway, okay, I'm going to end it there.

Love you guys. Be sure to go to crtv.com slash alley to check out my videos. Follow me on Twitter, on Instagram, on Facebook. You can also go to the conservative millennial blog.com for my blogs and email me with questions or suggestions at Alley at the conservative millennial blog.com. Bye.