Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 627 | Pro-Abortion Terrorism, Gun Control Bills & the Fatherlessness Problem | Guest: T.J. Moe

Episode Date: June 9, 2022

Today we're covering a few of the new cycle's trending topics and joining us to react to all the insanity is football player and contributor to "Fearless with Jason Whitlock" T.J. Moe. We start with the news that a person was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with guns, armor, and other tools, and it appears that this person was trying to end Kavanaugh's life. This is shocking and horrible, but upon considering how the media has either ignored or outright encouraged left-wing violence, it becomes less surprising. We also discuss a gun control bill that recently passed the House, and T.J. explains how every measure the government is trying to take won't actually help address the problems facing our country. --- Today's Sponsors: Naturally It's Clean — visit NaturallyItsClean.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to save 15% off your order today! Annie's Kit Clubs — get your first month 75% off at AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE. EdenPURE — get 3 Thunderstorm Air Purifiers for under $200 at EdenPureDeals.com, use promo code 'ALLIE'! HealthyCell — get 20% off your first order at HealthyCell.com/ALLIE, use promo code 'ALLIE'! --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise- use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday, this episode of Relatable, as all episodes is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Get American Meat delivered right to your front door. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash Allie for a discount.

That's Good Ranchers.com slash All right, guys. We've got a lot of news to get through today, and I am going to get through it with our friend T.J. Mo. This is a new friend, although I've been following him for a long time. He is a contributor to Jason Whitlock's Fearless Show, and he is a conservative commentator. We are going to be talking about the violence that's in this country. We are going to be talking about guns. We're going to be talking about fatherlessness, the cultural rot that is infecting our country, and how we think that we can fix it.

Now, let me just tell you, T.J. Moe's got some spicy takes. He's got some spicy takes about not just the moral issues that we have in our country. He's got some spicy takes about guns and the Second Amendment and the left. And so just sit back and enjoy the spiciness that we have. And typically, like, I am the more spicy one that is on the show. In this case, I found. myself kind of being the more vanilla one to his spiciness. So you're really going to like it. I know you guys like guests that really bring it and just say exactly what they think. So I know

you guys are going to enjoy this conversation a lot. Before we get into it, I do want to talk about this new story that I just find so incredibly disturbing. And then I'm going to get his reaction to it. But the story is about the man who went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. was found at his house, I think, early in the morning, not this morning, but the morning before, like 1 a.m. or something like that. He was in tactical gear. He was armed with a gun and zip ties and different kinds of weapons. And the police found him and they got the confession out of him that said he wanted to kill Justice Kavanaugh because of what he thought Justice Kavanaugh would have to say about the Dobbs case. that will decide the future of abortion in states across the country.

And then also what he thought Justice Kavanaugh would say about guns, which, as I will say with T.J. Mo is kind of ironic since this guy literally came from California with a gun in order to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So this is where we are. We've got pro-abortion terrorists who are literally trying to assassinate. Supreme Court justices because they might decide on a case that would have implications in many states about abortion on abortion legislation, not in the state of California where this guy comes from. Because remember, overturning Roe v. Wade, which may happen, depending on what happens

in this Dobbs case that the Supreme Court still has not published their decision on. is it would go back to the states. And so states would get to decide how much they want to restrict or allow abortion. So you are still going to be unfortunately able to get an abortion in many states. And in some states, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to receive an abortion. So it just gives it back to the state legislatures. It doesn't actually ban abortion outright, tragically. And people are so angry about this. People are so incensed that women might lose the right to kill their children, that they are actually going to kill the justices whose job it is to non-politically interpret the law in light of the Constitution. And yet we are told that the biggest

threat to democracy, the biggest threat to this country is Trump supporters, is so-called Christian nationalists, Republicans, conservatives, white supremacists. And yet you don't hear a peep out of the media about the left-wing violence that has terrorized the country for the past few years, whether it's in the form of the left-wing rioters that were decimating cities a couple years ago that lasted for months and months, whether it is the subway shooter or the Waukesha terrorist that were clearly motivated by the talking points that we see circulating in mainstream left-wing media. We don't hear from journalists on the danger that these people pose. You actually saw in the New York Times like a barely viewable, a barely readable little segment

in their newspaper this morning about the threat that Justice Kavanaugh faced in this guy coming to his house. This should be front page news. This is a really big deal, especially for the side that says that they care so much about democracy. But apparently this does not stop the laugh from continuing to intimidate Justice Kavanaugh. Here is a video of protesters outside of Kavanaugh's home where his wife and his little girls live by the way after his life was threatened by this crazy person that traveled to his home to try to kill him.

Completely unteterred, completely uninhibited by the encouragement that they know that they are giving crazy people to go to the justices homes and kill them. And as we've talked about and as I'll talk about in T.J. Mo, the blue check marks, the liberal blue check marks on Twitter are only encouraging this kind of thing. They think it's fine that Kavanaugh is getting death threats. They actually think, again, that the right to kill your child is worth murdering someone over. How do you not see that this is a side that is completely in service to death and destruction? and evil and wickedness, if you as a Christian have been waffling on this, how do you not see that this is a battle between light and dark and good and evil? And there's really no nuance here. There's never a reason for abortion. There's never reason to intentionally murder a child in or

outside of the womb. And of course, the people who advocate for that, who think that there is a right to that are also going to be murderous in other ways. They are going to allow a culture of death to reign. Get on the right and just and light and loving and actual compassion. compassionate side. Of course, this kind of thing has been encouraged by Democrat politicians. Here is Chuck Schumer a couple years ago when he was reacting to abortion legislation in places like Missouri and Louisiana. He basically threatened the conservative justices saying you better decide the way that we want you to decide or else. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Yeah, so this was a couple years ago when they were deciding on some other legislation and the constitutionality of these decisions. And look, I'm not saying that Chuck Schumer is directly to blame for what happened to Justice Kavanaugh or what. almost happened to Justice Kavanaugh, we do have free speech in this country. And yet, and yet, I mean, if he is not held responsible for that and yet conservatives, like Tucker Carlson has held responsible for the things that he says. And there is some like strange connection that is attempted to be made on the left between his words. And the Buffalo shooter, it's a little duplicitous if you ask me. And part of the reason why we just cannot seem to

come together at all as a country. Hey, this is Steve. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts.

I hope you'll join us. TJ, thanks so much for joining us. First, for those who may not be familiar, can you tell us who you are and what you do? I am a contributor. I'm fearless with Jason Whitlock. We talk Christianity. We talk politics. We talk sports.

We knew each other a little bit because I played football at the university. New Missouri over a decade ago now. And so Jason used to work at the Kansas City Star. So we had a little bit of a connection there. Didn't know each other, but that we knew of each other. And he called me in November and said, you want to give it a try? And here we are.

Here we are. And you also played professionally, correct? I was in camp with the Patriots. Tor my Achilles first year up there, so I spent the year with them. Okay, tell us how, though, you got into this political commentating world. Like, what made Jason reach out to you? say, hey, do you want to come on my show? Had you been active on Twitter? Or like, how did that happen? I asked him this question yesterday, actually. I don't know how we got to talking about it,

but yes, it was Twitter. I think Twitter is a net negative for the world. If Twitter went away tomorrow, we'd all be better off, but it does provide some opportunities. I know. Yeah, yeah, I think the same thing. I feel like every other week I'm debating, do I want to get off Twitter? Should I stop being on Twitter? It's such a toxic cesspool. But then you actually do get opportunities. Like the week that the Roe v. Wade draft came out, I was tweeting a lot. And I had so many opportunities because of the things that I was tweeting to talk about this important issue of being pro-life, even on a show that was more moderate slash liberal. And I'm like, well, you know, the Lord can use the cesspool of a platform for good for redemptive reason. So I don't know.

It's always a struggle that I have. I think it gives us an opportunity for people to hear more opinions, but it has totally wrecked our public discourse. So it's just two opinions now and you choose. You don't actually get to decide, which you don't get to hear him argue with each other. Yeah. Not properly. Do you think that Twitter, the rise of social media is part of why we have what seems like a rise in political violence? Because we're going to talk about this a little bit more in depth than just a second.

But, I mean, we saw this attacker go to Brett Kavanaugh's house. He was a guy from California. He was armed with a gun. He said that he was there to kill Brett Kavanaugh. because of his decision on or his what I guess this guy thought or thinks is going to be his decision on the Dobbs case, which decides Roe v. Wade. And also, ironically, what he thinks Kavanaugh thinks about the Second Amendment. And so do you think, like, social media has a part to play in something like this happening? Probably, I always hate to, similar to, like, you know,

blaming politicians for something they said and then a crazy person takes and it makes it what they want, I guess. I think what it's done is it's given crazy people, because there's so many people on social media, right? I think there's like three billion active monthly users on Facebook, two or three billion. And so what it's done is it's shown crazy people. There are other crazy people willing to agree with them. And that's that you now have, it's like you used to be able to go into a circle and all of the rational people would say, hey, you're crazy, let's tone this down. That's not a rational thought. Let's talk you off the ledge. Now you post it on the internet and all the other crazy people say, you're exactly right.

Go get your gun. We'll put this together. I think you can still pass your background check and get after it. Yeah. And there is, there's a high that you get, I think, from likes and retweets and people agreeing with you. I also think people who, maybe they wouldn't typically be crazy, but they're predisposed to kind of extremism and violence when they get online and they see other people that have the same kind of inclination, getting attention and affirmation, and they start to form kind of like communities

with those people, whether it's on the dark web or whether it's on Twitter or something like that. I think that leads to kind of the radicalism and the justification of hate and the thought that you could maybe be a hero. I mean, if you look at some of the things that are said that's said on Twitter, especially after that drafted opinion by Alito came out, these blue check marks saying that they're okay with bad things happening to the Supreme Court justices. They're okay with the death threats. They're okay with, you know, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and the other conservative justices being

potentially harmed. You could see how someone who is maybe predisposed to radicalism and violence would look at that and say, you know what? If I do this, if I carry this out, then I'm going to be a hero. And again, like you said, I don't want to blame these people for what's happening necessarily you do have free speech, but you could see how someone would make that connection. There's a poll that came out yesterday, and I'm trying to remember who it was from The Daily Caller or had the they weren't the ones that conducted the poll, but they were the report that I saw. 44% of young men that identify as Democrats believe it's okay to kill a politician if they are. 44% believe it's okay to kill a politician if they're doing something that they believe

harms America. Wow. Wow. And so I guess that's how you kind of justify it. And that's how I guess they justify harassing people like Kavanaugh. There's also been across the country, these pro-life pregnancy centers have been vandalized. They're spray painted with phrases like if abortion isn't safe, neither are you. So that's intimidation. That's a threat. Some of these centers have been destroyed. there have been arson attacks on these centers. These centers are doing the very work that pro-choicers say that pro-lifers aren't doing and should be doing, which is helping and providing for these women and these children even after the babies are born. And I think part of this is because there seems to be an excuse for this from the current administration and from the politicians at the top.

It's not just justified, but it's also kind of lionized. So I do want to play a clip from Jin Saki. She's asked about the protesters who are in front of Kavanaugh's house. She's asked, you know, what do you think about this? What does the president think about this? And here's what she says. So I know that there's an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date. And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges' homes.

And that's the president's position. All right. What do you think about that? I mean, what do you think about her response there saying, yeah, we are encouraging. these protests outside of the justices' homes? Well, it's against the law, so it seems like something the White House should know. The other thing is there is a serious failure on, I would assume it's Roberts, who gets to decide when these things are released.

Like the second that this leaked, now holding it back is taunting us. Right. Everybody knows. I don't know if it's some sort of we're going to keep the integrity of the court and you're not going to intimidate us, so we didn't plan to do this until the middle of the end of June, and so that's when we're going to do it. I don't buy that, though, because what you're doing unnecessarily is putting all of the conservative justices.

Nobody's trying to kill the liberal justices. The conservative justices are the ones that are taking the brunt of this. And I mean, Alito was taken to a, like a safe haven, whatever it was, several weeks ago, because he was the one that wrote it. Well, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Amy Coney-Barritt, all of them are in danger at this point. And so they're taunting us to some degree, which I think is silly. It's every Monday is when we get it. And what the last three or four Mondays are,

I'd be like, this might be the week and it never is. And so we're waiting on that. I think it's a really bad move. I also think Jen Saki, who I know has moved on now, but should try to learn the law, should try to, you know, everybody looks at President Trump and says he incited a riot, January 6th. Right. He's the one I told it, even though he said specifically,

you should peacefully march down to the Capitol. say break and enter. He said, and suddenly he incited a riot. So we should play the game fairly. Either Trump and- Well, they say that he incited worse than that. They say that he incited an insurrection, a coup. So even worse than just inciting a riot. So let's play the game fairly, right? Either he incited this insurrection. And so therefore, Jen Saki with these protests is threatening the life of Brett Kavanaugh or neither one did anything. I would like to land on the side of neither one did anything. I think, again, you should follow the law and not go forward with telling people to protest. You're also, this tells you a little bit of the stupidity of people's understanding.

Like, the court interprets the law. They don't make it. So if you don't like the law, go protest in front of your legislature. Don't do it in front of the Supreme Court who's, who, again, it's not that the left follows these rules, but you're supposed to just read the law interpret it. If you don't like it, then go put it into law. Yeah. And this is, it goes back to something that I say a lot about the left is that when they say democracy, they actually mean authoritarianism that they like. And when they say authoritarian, what they mean is democracy that they don't like. The words really don't have meaning to the left. And it makes sense when you think about just like the philosophy that guides them, that there is no absolute truth, that language is really about power, that it's something that you can

decide on and you can bend to your will in order to make the political and social changes that you want. We see that in so many ways. But you also see it with these very big, powerful, impactful words like democracy and authoritarianism. What they mean by democracy, their definition of democracy is mob rule. Like they actually believe that it would be better if we have institutions that can be threatened and intimidated by violence into doing whatever the left wants them to do than having neutral apolitical institutions that may come to conclusions that the left doesn't like. So again, their definition of democracy is actually authoritarianism, it is actually mob rule. And then they wonder why people are scared to give up their guns.

And they want to force you to give up the guns, right? It's like, you know, we're moving now. Actually, a new Quinnipiac poll came out today. We're at an all-time low for people who are willing to give up their guns, AR-15 and such. We're an all-time low. It's actually a good thing for us. We're moving towards guns and not away from them as Americans. But what they've done is they've destabilized homes, starting in 1964, they incentivize fathers to not be in the house. They started paying mothers, what in today's dollars would be the equivalent of about $90,000. And they would do the infamous man in the house checks, right, back in the 60s. They would actually take feds and walk them through the house of people that were getting these entitlements from the government to make sure there was no man there in the house, or they would take these entitlements away.

And so you've moved the fathers out of the house. You've destabilized the homes. And then now you're telling kids, you might be a girl, you might be a boy. You decide as a seven-year-old. How would I know what you're feeling? So these kids are mentally ill. They're destabilized with no parents. And now what you're trying to do is disarm them.

So instead of giving them back their mental health that you've stolen from them, the government is the one who's broken down these families and kids in their mental health. Now you're trying to disarm them and let the government take care of you. The government hasn't taken care of you so far. they're the ones that put you in this position. And now what you're saying is trust us. We'll take care of you with our guns. Don't you just feel in everything?

You talked about destabilization. I think that that is a really good word to describe progressive policies and just kind of the state that we're in. I think everyone left and right feels that, that it's unstable. Even if we don't agree on why we're unstable, we obviously think it's because of what you just said, the breakdown of the family, godlessness, the rejection of absolute truth and objective morality, a breakdown of our institutions, all of that. The left doesn't necessarily think that those are the reasons why, but it seems like everyone feels that we have irreconcilable differences,

that there is no going back. We're not going to go back to post-9-11 America where we were all unified. I don't think that there is anything that could happen, even if it was as terrible as 9-11, that would bring us together and that we would finally say, you know what, we can come together, forget our differences, and remember, you know, what unites us. So, I mean, what do you think the way forward? Is there a way forward? What is this all going to look like? Because it's very demoralizing to think about how polarized we are and the future of the country. I mean, it just looks really bleak.

Our only chance is a spiritual revival. Yeah. I do believe that. We've been talking about that a lot on fearless. I think our pastors have failed us so badly. So I left my church during the George Floyd stuff. Our pastor decided it wasn't going to tell us the truth. So. Okay, tell me a little bit because some people are still dealing with that. Tell me what it was that your pastor started saying that you and your wife were like, eh, this is not the place for us. He just wouldn't tell us the truth. The idea was is that it's just another thing. We're just, we're not taking care of the black people. This is just a net. You guys need to understand what is happening. We've all got to accept it. And if we want to embrace people and we got to love people. And so he went through the whole idea. And it was much, there's actually far more to it than that with the church. But that was sort of there. So he kind of like affirmed the idea that.

what happened to George Floyd was a symptom of systemic racism and of white people not loving black Americans enough. Yes, and also a representation of all of the police. And it's actually a representation of you because you support it, right? It was just fully untrue, not backed by anything more than these singular incidents. And by the way, I mean, everybody in the church thought, Derek Chauvin needs to be charged with something. Yeah.

But so the problem is, is he broadened it to everything. So we left. That's always the issue just to like pause because you make a really good point is that whenever we have like these disagreements, when something like George Floyd happens, everyone sees the video. We all say the same thing. We're like, that's awful. That's terrible. And so we're all agreeing for a split second until it's typically people on the left, they take it to a different place. Instead of just saying where we agree, hey, that's terrible. We need to look into what happened. We need to possibly charge this person if he's found guilty, just having like a rational discussion in an agreement about. what is bad, it moves into, well, this just shows you. This is what all police are like, well, this just shows you. This is what all white people are like, well, this just shows you. This is what America is like. And then it becomes a disagreement. And then we on the right feel like we have to be defensive because now you're making claims that aren't necessarily backed by fact. And yet, and you know, this happened to me a lot on Instagram, white woman Instagram is like hell

on earth. But during all this George Floyd stuff, when I would try to correct the record on some of the statements that were being made by the left is, well, you're not being empathetic. You're not being loving. This is not the time for facts and data. This is not the time for fact checking. So actually, you're just supposed to allow the other side to lie and to delude people into something that's not true that can actually entrap them into false narratives that then change policy, like defund the police, which ends up killing people. Apparently that's the empathetic thing to do. It's wild. Yeah. What is the minimum time allotted before I can tell the truth? Right. Somebody's got to tell me like, I'll start my watch. You just got to tell me, does it need to be 15 hours? Doesn't need to be 200 hours. I need to know when I can start telling the truth because they don't actually care about George Floyd. There is not one person on the left that actually cares about the life of George Floyd. I promise you. What they care about is using George Floyd to create a statute to get their policy in action. That's a person. That's it. George Floyd was a career criminal that beat up his pregnant girlfriend, right,

or threatened his pregnant girlfriend with a gun. We had like he was not a good person. Objectively, he was a bad person. But they're holding him up as somebody who should be celebrated. Right. It's like on the same day that a couple days later, you saw the tweet from former president Obama. He puts him in the same tweet as the Yuvaldi kids that were just murdered, 19 kids slaughtered. And he's like, and let's not forget about George Floyd. Yeah, so strange. So it's just, it is a reason to hold something up, completely discard them, and then say, this is important because this is just more evidence that our policy is right and your policy is

wrong. And you need to give us more control. It's always about stripping rights, never about giving them back. Yeah. And that's another point that it went to where we just couldn't agree because you could all agree, okay, what happened to George Floyd? You could say that shouldn't have happened or that was a bad situation or that was like a bad decision by the police, whatever. But then, you take it to the point of not just what we just talked about, about, you know, trying to indict all police or all white people, but also by saying, well, George Floyd wasn't just a victim in this instance, but he was also a saint.

Like he was also someone that we need to worship. Then it gets to a weird place. And then when you bring up things that you did, just the facts about his history, you're, wow, you're such a terrible person. You're an awful person. But if you openly lie about someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, and say that he murdered two black people in cold blood, well, that's fine.

You're just being compassionate. It's wild. Again, I know I keep saying that, but like, it really is. I mean, it's just mind-blowing when you think about the duplicitousness of all of it. It is insanity. And so back to your original question, we left that church and moved to a pastor in what was a, St. Louis is a pretty segregated city. That's where I live now at St. Louis.

And there's sort of the intersection of where the whites and the blacks live, is this church that I go to. And he just started telling the truth. He's like, BLM is a terrorist organization. I'm just telling you guys. And he's saying it from the pulpit. And he's going through every day now. I mean, Charlie Kirk came to the church and spoke at night.

I didn't have it as part of the service, but he promoted on the service. He puts resource. He's played three fearless clips at the beginning of service. Wow. He's all over it. And he started telling us the truth. He's one of the few, though. And so the point I've been making is that men, especially men,

the church right now is split. It's about this, it's been this. way for a while, but it's even worse now. The church is about 60% women, only 40% men. And that's because men cannot follow cowards. And our church, our pastors have tiptoed around everything forever. And they had this idea of separation of church and state as though separation of church and state was created to protect the government from the church, right, instead of the church from the government. Who's getting protected? It's the church. And so the pastors with all their 501c3 garbage, they're so afraid of saying anything, they've backed away and become cowards. Well, men can't follow other

cowards. And that is a serious, serious problem. And so your show, Fearless with Jason Whitlock, Steve Days, I think Christians are actually moving away from the church and moving into a space where they're like, well, my pastor's not going to tell me how to deal with this crisis going on. But Ali might, so I'm going to tune in and watch her. I actually think that's where we're going. So our only hope of moving here is having enough people with the courage to speak up and proudly speak Christian values into what is a cancerous society right now. Yeah, I think that you're absolutely right about that. And it's not that people want their pastors talking about politics in every single sermon or from the pulpit every Sunday.

But as you said, I do think that people are looking for pastors who will just tell the truth. Just be clear about these subjects. Don't tiptoe around what you're talking about. If you want to talk about the definition of marriage according to the Bible, Like if you want to talk about gender identity, just say it. Just say what the Bible says because the Bible is very clear about that. I think a lot of Christians think that by tiptoeing around subjects that they're actually being more loving. And to me, that's just idolatry because you're basically saying that you are more loving than God.

You're more loving than the Bible. Because if the Bible is clear about this, but you think the Bible's too harsh, then you're basically saying, well, I'm more compassionate than God is. because if you think that what Romans 1 says about depravity, about sin, about sexuality, about homosexuality, it's just too harsh and unloving, then you're basically saying that God is unloving. And far be it for me to call God who is love, as 1 John 4-8 says, unloving. I just think that Christians think that we need to apologize for what the Bible says, caveat what the Bible says in order to reach people. That's just backwards.

It's so funny, brought up the word depravity. I've used that word on Twitter a couple times recently to describe. largely, I think I was talking about the patch of compliance. I call it down in Tampa Bay where you have to wear the pride. And the amount of people I came back and like, I can't believe you use the word depravity. I'm like, take it up with me. Take it up with the Bible. It's like, look, I'm not smart enough to tell you what's going on with all this stuff.

I'm smart enough to read the Bible and apply it. That's it. And so I'm like, you're going to have to explain to me how when the Bible says that sexual immorality is a bad thing, particularly that homosexuality is a bad thing. You have very poor outcomes. That's not moral corruption. And the wickedness part of it isn't the celebration. You're going to have to explain to me how that lines up with the Bible.

Because it is Christians who are arguing with me about this. They're like, you're losing your witness. I'm like, I'm the only witness out here. I'm the only one telling them the truth. Yeah. And speaking of that story, because we haven't talked about it on the show yet. So there were five, I believe, Tampa Bay players, baseball players who decided not to put like the pride flag on pride flag patch.

on their uniform, which is silly. Like, why would you even have that? It's like, it has the, has the trans flag on there and like the black and the brown. It's not just like the rainbow flag is out. That's so like, you know, 2018. We've got a new flag now. And so these players basically said, look, we're just not, we're not going to wear this patch. It doesn't align with our religious beliefs. And of course, they're getting some media attention for it. I say on the one hand, great for them. I'm sure that was a difficult decision. They could have gone the easy way. And they could have said, well, you know, we're just going to do it. It's not that big of a deal.

It's not an endorsement. We're choosing to play for this team. And so we're just going to do it. They could have gone the easy way and they decided to stand up and say no. At the same time, I was reading the explanation from one of the players who was explaining his reasoning behind it. And I felt that he felt that he had to bend over backwards to explain that, well, no, we love everyone.

We accept everyone. We're welcoming everyone. Everyone is safe, which is great. Like, yes, you should love everyone is made in the end. damage of God, everyone is equal value. But it's sad to me that Christians and conservatives feel that they have to, again, add so many caveats and so many explanations for what they believe, especially around the subject. Just stand firm on the Word of God. Be as clear as the Bible is about it. And then just let God take care of the rest. We don't have to bend over backwards to make

excuses for or to take God off the hook for what he says. I just think that that is actually what damages our witness. Completely agree. And so I think that media and our large corporations and the left-leaning everything is actually using and taking advantage of athletes. Athletes are always afraid that they're going to lose their position. They're in a very high-paying job for a very short amount of time. So these guys have to do whatever it takes every day.

And in order to succeed in that world, all you can think about is your sport. How do I improve today to stay on this team to make the money that I need to make right now because I know I'm not going to be here for very long? So then they say you need to wear these patches. And they're like, I just got to survive. I just, so for those guys to step out is a really big deal. Because most guys don't put any thought into it. All they're trying to do is survive.

And they intentionally take advantage of athletes. So again, former athlete, we're not that smart. So they take advantage of people that are not that thoughtful oftentimes. They're not known for their brains, but people still respect their opinions. Right. It's like, people are like, well, what did Tom Brady say about that? You know, what did these guys, same thing with actors. They're not necessarily people that are the most thoughtful people

in the world. So you put these patches on athletes and it is now an endorsement. I would like an athlete. I would have loved for a guy like Benjamin Watson, who I love, very extremely thoughtful, former tie-in for the Patriots. He's thoughtful. He's thoughtful. He has put some stuff together, particularly about fatherhood, wrote a whole book about it, very thoughtful in those ways. But I think he's one of the few thoughtful people. So general, I think they hold athletes up and take advantage of them. I would like an athlete to step forward and say, you're going to have to explain to me why I should celebrate something that is in direct opposition to what my God teaches. not just accept it, not just not come out and come against what these homosexuals are doing on our team.

There's not one person who's actually said, I don't want to play with this guy because of his sexual behavior. You've not seen anybody attack anyone. You're going to have to explain to me why I need to celebrate it. And they can't do that. And so I think they're being used to some degree because this just isn't where their head is. The other thing is I think the left actually, they're. They do this, they set it up. They're excited when somebody comes against them because it gives them a pinata, right?

They get to beat the tar out of these five guys for the next, however many news cycles. And it's a warning to the next Christians. Don't do this because you're going to be held out there. There's nobody else coming to your rescue. There's only a few shows like this that will do it. And then what they are ultimately saying is, listen, we're totally fine with your Christianity so long as you don't actually act out any of the beliefs that God teaches. Mm-hmm. Yep, that's absolutely true. They are okay with Christianity as long as it's a Christianity

that agrees with secular progressivism. As long as you don't believe anything or say anything that the Bible says is true, and as long as you check that belief system at the door, whenever you're talking about politics, whenever you are baking a cake or arranging a flower arrangement, whatever it is, then that's totally fine. They obviously, they don't apply that if you have progressive politics. They will call it Christian nationalism. If I say, you know what, God gave us our rights. He gave us first and foremost the right to life, and that is one reason why I don't believe it's okay to kill a child inside the womb. That's Christian nationalism. That's scary. But if a progressive professing Christian says, well, you know what, I'm in favor of socialism

because look at this account of the early church and acts, or because, you know, God says that we should care for the foreigner in the Old Testament. Therefore, I believe that we should have open borders and liberal border policy. That's okay. For that form of Christianity, that's okay, because it's just progressive politics, of course, we could talk about why that's a wrong interpretation and application of scripture. That apparently is not Christian nationalism. It's only Christian nationalism when conservative Christians allow their faith to guide what they think about politics and culture and their decision. But if you're a secularist, if you're a progressive in any way, you don't have to check your worldview at the door. Not only can you allow it to influence what

you think about politics, but you have every right to impose your belief system on other people and force people to believe and to act out what you do. And sorry, I know I'm on a ramp, but it just reminds me of what the Biden administration is doing with the USDA. They are taking funding away from institutions like public schools who use their school lunch program for poor students if those schools, if those entities do not allow boys into girls restrooms. So that is forcing basically a religious, pseudo religious belief system on everyone else and actually saying we will start we will freaking starve you if you don't agree with us and but christians we're the ones that are not supposed to allow our worldview to influence our decisions well i was trying to figure

this out when i first heard the term christian nationalism i'm like that's a pretty good description of me i'm a christian nationalist i think that my christian values everybody votes their values whether or not you put christian in front of or not you should be voting your values or you probably shouldn't be voting right so you show up at the ballot box and you say i believe these things these people reflect these things. And so I want to go and vote based on what the Bible says. That's it. I think our country should be governed based on good, wholesome values. And so it's just we put Christian in front of nationalism as though it's some bad thing. I don't think it's a bad thing. Yeah, I think it depends on what you mean by that. I think that obviously it's good to be a Christian.

I'm a Christian. And then I think that there's nothing wrong with being a nationalist in the sense that true nationalism means putting the interest in the well-being of your country first. And everyone seems to understand that when it comes to, for example, Ukraine. It's okay for Ukraine to put their safety, their sovereignty, their borders, their protection, the interest and the needs of their people first. And it's okay for Zimbabwe to do that. It's okay for Nigeria to do that. It's not okay for some reason when America says, you know what, we are going to put the interest, the well-being of our people before we are going to prioritize. the interests of Mexico or Guatemala or whatever it is. For some reason, that's a scary form of

nationalism and fascism and Nazism that we need to resist. But it's okay when other countries do it, but not America. For some reason, it's bad. But I think what people, I think one like bad form of so-called Christian nationalism, if you can even call it that, I do think that some Christians have like this mistaken belief that America is modern day Israel, that America is God's chosen country, that America is going to play a significant role in the end times, that America is like the city on the hill. And I agree. That's wrong. That's not biblically true. I mean, America is a great country in a lot of ways. I do think God is uniquely bust America. But I do think it's wrong to elevate the United States to like this chosen country by God that is

going to herald God's kingdom. So yeah, it's a nuanced discussion about Christian nationalism. Agreed. My point about Christian nationalism and why America has been so blessed is that we have followed his values and principles that deliver those blessings. In a lot of ways. Yes. Obviously, we're not doing that today. But many, most of our, the history of our country, we obviously have our sins and slavery, but as Royce White from Fearless always says, it's a self-perfecting document. When you lay out these principles, then you allow yourself time to fix them because this is the Frederick Douglas idea, right? I want you, I'm going to force you to stand up to the values that you say this country stands by. Yes. And so this self-perfecting document has allowed that. It is a,

it is a nuanced discussion. I just don't think, I think Christians have decided that we need to do what Obama did on a national scale, go on an apology tour. Yeah. I'm sorry, it's just my religion. Just don't, don't blame. It's just my religion. I'm sorry, it's really not me, it's God. It's like, you're apologizing for God? Good luck with that approach. Yeah, exactly, or apologizing for other Christians, Christians who aren't quite secular or progressive enough or who don't, you know, read the New York Times. I think that's, yeah, I think that's absolutely true. I want to talk about, well, there's a lot of things I want to talk about. Well, okay, let me circle back because this is going to kind of flow into what I want to talk about next. So I do want to circle back to something that you said about, and people listening are probably waiting for me to circle back to this. You said something that the, left, there is no one on the left who cares about the life of George Floyd. Now, I would agree that there are very few, if any, Democrat politicians or people in the media or in the activist class who care about George Floyd's life. I do think that there are people, individuals who are on the left, who, and this can be a blessing, but it can also be a curse.

And that's what I want to talk about is that they are so empathetic. They are so driven by emotions. They are so driven by what they see, who really, really do care. who did care about George Floyd's life. They really care about injustice. They really care about victimized people. They really care about what they see as oppression. I think that they really do care about George Floyd.

This is especially true for women. I think that their feelings are sincere. The problem in my estimation is that they allow those feelings to override. Any conversations about facts, any conversations about what policies actually work. I think that's why a lot of women become progressive because I do think that they start with good intentions. They start with real compassion and real empathy. But rather than asking the question, well, what policies actually work? Like, what is the effect of these policies?

They only ask, well, what's the intention of the policies? What sounds good? What can I say and do that will offend the least number of people because I want to be seen as empathetic? Empathy can be a good thing, but it can also. be toxic because it precludes you, it prevents you from seeing what is true, from seeing what is real. If the only thing that's guiding you is your feelings, you are going to end up making very bad, very stupid decisions that lead to things like we said, like defunding the police because that's the, that's what the activists in the moment are telling you that need to do.

Well, that's led to murder. So is that empathetic? Is that compassionate? So to me, that's the problem. It's not that no one cared about his life. It's that they allowed that sincere care to inhibit them from seeing reality and true justice. Yeah. So to be more specific, I'm talking about the ruling class, not the individuals on the street who may be feeling the heart. I don't think there's one politician on the left who actually valued the life of George Floyd. I mean, that's true. I do not believe.

Wait, you're talking about them dressing and like Ghani and Garb and like kneeling down Nancy Pelosi. You're saying that wasn't a sincere display of compassion. And I don't think BLM, who just bought their $6 million mansion in California. I don't think they cared about. Not the people at the top. No, I don't think so either. That's who I'm discussing. Yeah.

And I think you're right because you can look at the polling of who supports BLM and see that there's a huge spike in June of 2020, whatever it was. And so I do agree that's true. But the people on the ground protesting aren't actually making any of the policy. Decisions. Yes. And so it is everybody else who's trying to take it. advantage of it. And so, and also the people on touch, Chuck Schumer does not care. Nancy Pelosi does

not care. Joe Biden doesn't even know what's going on. He couldn't care if he tried, right? So that is, that is what I mean as far as that, to your point about empathy, my position has been that I think overly empathetic women and cowardly men, maybe our biggest problem this country today, because it precludes us from telling the truth, right? And so you try to look at the one person, you could have just changed this one life. Yeah, but then a thousand people died because of it. Do you know, how many people got murdered because you defunded the police. You saved the one life. That person didn't get killed by the police,

but how many lives do the police save? This is the gun discussion, right? If you just take the weapons from everybody, you could have saved that one school shooting. Okay, but you realize that the entire 20th century is full of communist countries that stole the guns from their people and you have a hundred million deaths.

Should we trade? I'm not, it sounds bad, but I cannot trade the lives of 19 children for 100 million deaths. It's a bad trait. Yeah, that's really tough. That's really tough. And I think that is what empathy,

I think that's how it guides you. It makes you make bad calculations because you're not even really able to see the other side of the calculation. And by the way, that's not even like a real trait. That's not even a real calculation. That's not even really what's happening. because there is no correlation between the solutions that have been put forward by Democrats in the form of gun control and what happened in Yuvaldi.

None of the measures that they have suggested so far would have actually saved the lives. I think all of us, Second Amendment advocates and people who are opposed to the Second Amendment alike, if we could find a solution that would say, okay, how can we prevent all of the mass shootings and all of the gun crime, so-called gun crime, so-called gun crime from happening while not inhibiting the rights of law-abiding people from being able to bear arms. We would all be on board. Unfortunately, what's been put forward by the Democrats doesn't do that. It doesn't do any of that. It actually inhibits the rights of law-abiding people while doing nothing to inhibit crime. And let me just go over some of the points of the bill that was passed in the House and I'll get your reaction because, as you said, you're a gun guy. And so I just want to get your response to this. HR 7910. It passed in the house yesterday. Ten Republicans voted yes on it,

which is interesting. It is a package of eight gun control bills that pass the house. So it attempts to raise the age of purchase for certain semi-automatic center fire rifles and shotguns to 21 years old, stop gun trafficking and straw purchases, register all firearms for tracing purposes, require safe storage such as locking guns and safes or with trigger locks when kids are around, close the bump stock loophole, restrict magazine capacities to 15 rounds, and use burns buyback procedures for higher capacity mags. So I don't even know personally what all of that means. Is there anything in that bill that you think is helpful or that would actually reduce gun crime? Because I would be open talking about that, but I want to hear from you. Like, is there anything

that you see in this bill that's good? No. The average age of a mass shooter, and that's defined, I think, four or more deaths since 1960, the average age is 33. The guy in Las Vegas who took out everybody at the concert was like 64 years old. And these are, we're talking about only AR-15s because nobody is telling you you can't own a handgun. Virginia Tech, I think, killed 33 people with some handguns. Yeah. Right?

It's like, so if you know anything about guns, they're talking about taking it from right now, um, the average magazine for an AR-15 will hold 30 bullets, right? You can get them for 40. You probably get them for 50. but these people 77% of the guns that are used by criminals were either stolen or straw purchase right and so that means somebody else they wouldn't have it they obtain them illegally as the point right so they're going to get guns that they want they can do there's so many magazines that i've got probably 50 magazines that have 30 or more bullets to hold in my ar 15 and so the other thing about that

is when you're shooting if you know what you're doing I'm not saying all these guys do, but a lot of them do. When you're shooting, you have no idea how fast I can change that magazine. If you've ever watched someone who's skilled with a gun, the only stop that you would hear, it happens so fast you'd think they were just aiming somewhere else, right? Drop it out, pop it right back in, and you're right back to shooting. So the bump stock thing, Trump was for that when he was in office. If you've seen that, it does shoot faster, but also it's way less accurate because it sprays

all over the place. So there has been no, so far as waiting periods, there's been no evidence. Politico even came out and says there's no evidence whatsoever that says a waiting period has stopped any killings anywhere. It's just like if somebody's got to wait 48 hours, they'll just plan ahead and wait 48 hours to go on their shooting spree. So there's nothing. What the problem is, this is my big issue with politicians that I can't stand. They say we have to do something. So they just do something. And all it does is punish the rest of us that are abiding by the law. The people who are not going to abide by the law are still not going to abide by the law that you're saying now. Is it a huge issue right now that kids are stealing their parents' guns and shooting themselves?

Because otherwise, what are they discussing and who's going to come in and check whether or not you have your ammunition locked up separately inside your house from your guns? You know, most of this is very intrusive. Most gun owners do all this stuff. My ammunition is not stored outside of a safe with my guns. If you are responsible gun owner, you're already following. the things that they're talking about. So the more restrictions you put on them only restricts me, who's paying attention? It doesn't restrict these other people that are obtaining their guns illegally and going on shooting sprees.

Yeah. I don't know if maybe they're thinking that by requiring certain locks and safeguards on guns when kids are around, that would reduce the ability of a minor in their parents' house to go steal a gun and then go, I don't know, shoot up a school or to kill someone or to kill themselves. So do you think, I mean, do you think that there is, and this is, and this is, is a sincere question that I don't know the answer to because I'm sympathetic to the conversations that are being had around this, even though I am a Second Amendment advocate and I'm more sympathetic to the arguments that you are making in the gun control advocates. But is, like,

is there anything? Is there anything that should be done legislatively that you think would be effective in preventing the mass shootings that we have seen recently? Like, is there anything do you think that should be done on the federal or state level? Stop dissentifying men in the house. I mean, that's the number one thing. Going back to 1964, again, I think I can't cite the study, but the study that I saw said about 75% of mass shooters didn't have a dad in the home, right? And so they are destabilized families that are going out and coming.

Again, it's not like everybody who doesn't have a dad in a home is going out and doing crazy things. but if you are people who are already the fringe people who could have the potential to do this, and then you take away the dad. And then the mom has to play dad, right, and go out and work several jobs and stuff. So if you have nobody in the home and they're sitting on social media all day long, and the Q&on chats, and, you know, it's like the amount of things you can get into is really, really bad. And so legislatively, I would aim towards getting the family back together, truly.

I think that is our biggest issue facing us. If you could get families back together, get mom, dad, kid the way it should be get them off of government subsidies and things, then I think these things, much of them would take care of themselves. So far as actual gun laws and things, the one thing that people talk about that I think conservatives are somewhat open to hearing is these red flag laws. Yeah. You're going to have to find a different way to do it. So red flag law is basically saying, look, this person has red flags in their record. in their background they shouldn't be able to own a gun? No.

It is, this guy's acting weird. Check out these social media posts and things like that. Because otherwise they wouldn't pass a background check, right? If they had these red flags, it's like, everybody thinks there's no background checks. Like this 18-year-old in Evalde went and passed background checks to get his guns. Which, yeah, I do just want to pause there because if we're talking about what can be done with the law, like, we should probably be enforcing the law. Unfortunately, these like liberal DAs that don't believe in enforcing the law and don't believe in punishment. people for breaking the law. Like it is against the law for this kid to have shot people with

BB guns. And the animal cruelty that he had documented on social media, that should have, that should have prevented him, I think, from being able to own a gun, right? I mean, I know that you want to be careful about that kind of stuff. But animal cruelty, cruelty towards people, the self-harned that he had, that he had shown that he had demonstrated, that his friends had documented. I think that that is part of the problem that we don't have a great way of documenting those things. We don't have a great way of helping people who have mental health problems. Like, I don't think he should have been just like thrown into prison for all of those things. But shouldn't there have been some kind of system or institution in place that would have shown, okay, this guy, he's a troubled guy.

He has threatened people with violence. He is, he is isolated. He has threatened women with rape. He has harmed himself. He has harmed animals. He has harmed people in a non-fatal way. this guy probably shouldn't be able to go to a gun store and buy two AR-15s. I just don't know what exactly that system looks like, but I want it in place, don't we all? Yeah, so that's why I think some conservators are sympathetic to the red flag laws. And the red flag law would be, I say, hey, I'm going to show you some of these social media posts,

that he's actually threatened to shoot up a school at some point. He's done some of these things. We need to take a look at these things. The problem is, is that anybody then could do that. And the way it's set up right now is they, for two weeks, can confiscate all your guns. So there's no due process, right? And so it's like you could just do this forever and say, he told me this. And this is it, well, you don't need any reason.

Just take his guns. And like who is deciding? What's the definition of a red flag? Is it just that someone said that he's angry about, you know, a liberal policy? Is it just because you don't like someone's politics? And so you call them crazy or unstable because of that or you have a vendetta against someone. And so then the government is able to... and, you know, infringe upon your Second Amendment rights because someone doesn't like something

that you said on social media. Or somebody wants to attack you. So they need to make sure that you don't have your guns while they're coming to attack you, right? So you can get them confiscated for two weeks and you're fully unarmed and they know it. Right? So that's why there's like always and forever, I will lean towards more gun. America does not need less guns. It needs more guns.

Because if there were teachers inside of Yuvalde that were trained, I don't want to just start handing out guns to all the teachers, but the teachers that are willing to be trained and go get licenses and understand what to do in these procedures. If any of the teachers inside that building had a gun, it would have been a different story. I'm good friends with the Navy SEAL. He's like, do you know how many special forces guys are just looking for meaning and something to do? Because we were overseas doing crazy things, and we come back here and we're like, am I really going to work as an accountant?

You could go protect a school, and that's worthwhile. And so Joe Biden came out last week or two weeks ago and said he's against hardening schools, right? Well, why? If we're talking about doing some things, I'm always going to lean away from taking guns and lean towards more guns that can protect from the crazy people. There are 393 million guns in circulation right now. You're not getting them. More guns than people. Yes. And, you know, everybody says, well, Australia did it. Australia compensated 650,000 guns. We have 393 million, 20 million of which are AR-15s. You're not taking them. And Australia didn't even get all the guns when they confiscated. And a lot of people, and I do understand this is a little bit of a confounding fact, is that we are, America is unique in these types of shootings. That doesn't mean that other developed countries don't have murder with other kinds of weapons because they do. And people say, well, it's just because of the number of guns that you have. It's because of the lax gun laws that you have.

That's why you have these particular murders in other countries don't quite as much. but I actually think that there are a lot more. There are many more factors that contribute to that. Because as you mentioned, America has always had a lot of guns. We've had a lot of guns, a lot of gun ownership. I was listening to a pastor talk about when he was young in high school. I mean, there was just, it was like avid gun culture. People would have their guns like in their dashboards.

Everyone would talk about their guns. You'd go out and lunch at lunch and look at each other's guns. And there weren't mass shootings. Like this isn't something that was. happening when he was growing up. So obviously something else has changed. It's not the gun ownership. America has always had a lot of guns. It's not the kind of gun. And AR-15 has been around since the 1960s. So we do have to look at these cultural, these moral issues. We do have to look at other policies that protect these kinds of schools. Why do we want schools to be soft targets? If we make sure that

we harden concerts and we, you know, harden the halls of Congress. Yeah, exactly. and celebrities and award shows, if all of those people, you know, football games, if all of those events and people and buildings are worth protecting, like, if we're not even, we're not having a conversation when it comes to, like, if we should have security at football games or if we should pass some gun laws. We're not having that debate. Why are we having a debate when it comes to whether or not we should secure schools? That's just, I mean, if we really care about these kids, we should be having reasonable conversations. And that's how you know that the dialogue is really so dishonest as the media is spinning it at least,

that the person who says, hey, you know, I think we should have more security at schools. I think that we should look at these solutions that don't include gun confiscation because it's not going to happen. You're laughed at. You're told that you don't care about these kids. But the person who presents a totally illogical solution that we should just confiscate all guns, that person is praised as having compassion even though their solution is never going to work. That's exactly correct. And it is, I will not go as far to say what I said about George Floyd because I do think

Congress does care about the kids, but they're still using the kids as emotional manipulation. They know that if kids are killed, then that's going to hit the heartstrings of all of us. And it should. It should hit the heartstrings. But you do, you question the sincerity of someone when they exploit a situation like that to present legislation that actually has no connection. Well, and then you have the congressman from New York who came out and said, we're doing this. And if we got to pack the court, we're doing this.

And if we have to, what do you say, get rid of the filibuster, we're doing it. So it's like, okay, so all the laws go out the window. So because you have feelings. Is that what I'm getting at here? Here's the other thing. And you said the AR-15th because this is really what they're attacking. They aren't putting law. I don't think any of those laws really outside of the waiting period was for pistols.

Well, the 15-round magazine. I mean, that applies to a lot of guns, right? That applies to most guns that people have, including handguns, right? Occasionally, most of mine are 12. So a handgun, you know, just a regular pistol that you have on your hip, probably no more than 16. So maybe you drop it by one. But most of the time you're going to have somewhere in the 10 to 12 to 15 range in a pistol.

And so it's that that is more for the AR-15 or certain types of rifles. But pistols, so if you go look at the murder, every year. These are the 2020 stats last ones I saw available. There are over 8,000. I think there's 8,029 murders with pistols. Do you know how many were from all rifles? Every single one, including shotguns, including- Like 400 or something? 455. So it's like 95% of them are happening from pistols. But you're really mad about these AR-15s because it's emotional because they look scary. Yeah. And so I don't make laws on being afraid. I don't think operating out of fear is a good way to go. and what it's doing is because our AR-15s, if you're going to protect, I'll give you an example, my wife is,

she wouldn't like me to say her weight on the air. So she is a small, petite, not, she's, you know, fit and stuff, but it's like she doesn't like handguns because it about kicks out of her hand. So we got her in AR-15, so that if anything ever happens, she can put it against her chest and protect herself. And so I would make the argument that this is more of an attack on women than it is on men. I can hold two handguns at once and be fine. And for a lot of women, the kick is too much. They can't aim. They're already shaking. They're already afraid.

And they're stuck. And so not only are you going to put them in a position with a gun that's harder for them to handle, you're going to give them less shots to do it. Yeah. I always think gun control is an attack on poor people as well because one of the suggestions that I saw is like in a thousand percent tax or something on AR 15. Okay. So all the rich people will be able to keep their AR 15s and the poor people won't.

And I actually saw an op-ed in the Washington Post talking about that a few years ago. saying gun control measures cannot be specifically targeted at poor people who tend to live in higher crime areas and need to be able to protect themselves more than people who will be able to afford to own the guns if you put these kinds of regulations on the guns. And so this is just another topic that I feel like we are never going to be able to come together on because we have two, the right and the left, have such diametrically opposed views to not only guns, but also like what a right is and what liberty looks like and what our priorities are and there's so much emotional propaganda around it it's really hard to have any sort of logical conversation.

One thing the left does is any law that's made. They say it's going to disproportionately affect women and people of color. That's what this gun thing does. Gun control does. Gun control. Anything so it's like, okay, black men in America, six, six percent of population are responsible for over 50 percent of the murders. 93% of black people are killed by other black people. They're only a total of 13% of the population, right? And so a lot of numbers there, but bottom line is they're being killed at a rate way beyond what their population would say they should be killed.

So wouldn't you want to arm the black population? Instead of we had majutorre on fearless, and he's like, do you know that since 1990, 90% of these mass shootings have been done in gun-free zones? Like, who's following the law? A million times per year, people use guns to defend themselves. And these aren't in the stats because these aren't fatal shootings, right? But people use their guns a million times per year. Well, you don't even always have to fire a shot.

That's something that's not included in the stats. You wield your gun if someone is attacking or threatening your life or the life of your family. I mean, that's not necessarily going to be recorded anywhere. We don't even know how many times that happens in a day or just someone saying, hey, I'm armed. Don't mess with me. Like that's never going to be added to the statistics that we have, but you just don't know. We don't even know.

We can't even quantify what being able to defend yourself does, especially for women. There was a guy in the Washington Post yesterday who wrote a story about how black people really just need to flee America because of the crazy white people who are trying to hunt them down. So I went and looked at the stats of black gun ownership. 24% of black people own a gun. I think it's 36% of white people. That's a pretty good clip. That's probably 10 million people, right? It's like there's 40 million or so black people in America.

And these were the 2018 stats. I think it was Pew Research Center that did that study. In 2020, based on, I think, background checks after the George Floyd stuff. And the police just hands off, we're going to let the riots burn our cities down. Black gun ownership increased by 58%. And so it's like, they, see that I'm going to need some guns. One, if the police aren't going to do their jobs, but two, if things are going to get crazy in my neighborhoods, this is my best method of protecting myself.

And so I just don't, you know, everybody acts like, oh, this is a white man issue and everybody else is for us. I don't see it that way. I actually think that the white men who, like me, who are saying we need more guns are trying to help protect the Alibeth Stuckies of the world and the black people in America who black people are in the areas in the inner cities where a lot of these shootings happen predominantly. Should we not arm them and try to make sure that they can protect themselves? Yeah. That's what the left always does for any issue, for, you know, Delano Squires, who he also talks about this a lot, like that, oh, gun control is racist, school choice is racist, anti-LGBQ is racist. Like anything that the left doesn't like, they paint as like a white supremacist

issue to try to make it toxic. So people don't want to touch it. People don't want to attach themselves to it. they know that racism is accusations of racism. It's just like the hot topic in America. And it's the thing that no one wants to be seen as. So if you call anything racist, there are enough people. A lot of people don't care. They're like, well, whatever, you're going to call everyone that. But a lot of people do. A lot of people, especially suburban women, they don't want to be called that. So if you're telling me that school choice is racist or gun control or anti-gun control is racist, okay, then fine that I'm not going to, you know, associate myself with that, which kind of goes back to that whole, like, toxic empathy piece that can really manipulate people's minds.

They just allow themselves to be morally extorted so easily and manipulated by emotional propaganda rather than just asking some questions. Like, is this actually true? I saw, to your point, like, I saw this UGov poll. It was a couple years ago when all the George Floyd riots were happening that showed that 80% of black Americans want the police presence in their area to stay the same or increase. A very small percentage of black Americans actually wanted any kind of defunding or even any decrease of the police at all. And so when people say, well, you need to listen and learn from black voices, it's just white people who want police. I'm like, well, what black voices are you listening to? Is it the Ibramax

Kindies? Is it the Patrice Kohlers of the world who live in predominantly white, rich, gated communities who are, you know, making tens of thousands of dollars an hour, who are capitalists, who say that they love socialism? What voices are you listening to? Because they accuse us of only listening to the black voices that agree with us by listening to people like Thomas Sol or Jason Whitlock. But I'm like, well, maybe it's the opposite. Maybe you, white liberals are really only listening to black people who agree with you.

Maybe we on the conservative side are more in tune to what a lot of the working class and poor black Americans are saying about the safety and the security that they feel like they need in their communities. And that's Whitlock. contention. He has a great job talking about how the left cares very little or nothing about the black community. They care about using them because white people don't want to be called racist. And so it's like the most religious, the most Christian single group in America is black people. Like they, if you look at all the polling, they're the most religious amongst us still. As white people

are leaving the church, there are still like. So and the biblical values line up far more with the conservative side than the liberal side. And they will go against that because of the emotions of it and say, oh, we got your back. We'll take care of you. We'll give you the money. The dad's not around. We'll give you some extra entitlements. We'll get you figured out. And so, and now they have, they have, this was Whitlock's point yesterday, decided that we're going to just put all of the oppressed groups together. And so black people are going to partner with women who are going to partner with the LGBTQ community. It's like, nobody has an identity. It's, there is some irony in groups that are saying, we, individually have always been oppressed and you need to respect us that are so willing to be

grouped in with a bunch of other people and lose that identity. Yep. And, you know, we have to close out, but you're reminding me of this clip that I wanted to play from The View, Joy Behar, who is, you know, our intellectual exemplar. She is a brilliant, brilliant cultural commentator. And so she has a stunning observation on the view about a lot of what we're talking about right now. Here's what she said. Most AR-15 owners are former military. 35 plus is married. So that's all I'm saying is that they're not this crazy people.

Here's the thing. Once black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change. Trust me. What? Oh, so black people don't own guns in this country. And this you got a huge applause for that, right? Yeah. So do they handpick these people?

Not that the Vue's got a huge audience. But yeah. Yeah, it is an insult. When people say that, it tells you what they think of black people. because it's like people like me who have been paying attention are very happy that there was a 58% surge in black gun ownership into 2020 because I think they need some protection. And that would be very good for them to have that protection. That's a good thing. I've been aware of that.

Joy, obviously not aware that 24% of black people already own guns and we would all like that to increase. Yeah. We want responsible gun ownership across the board. Also, like, it just shows how people don't pay attention to what you were talking about earlier about murder rates. Unfortunately, black men are disproportionately likely to. to be victims of murder. It's, I believe, you know, black men make up about 8% of the population and yet commit about 40% of all homicides, which means that they are disproportionately victims of those homicides and violent crime. And so that's something that's already happening,

has been happening for a very long time. Obviously, Joy Behar doesn't know about that. Black gun ownership is not, there's not a deficit of it. Like, we're not worried about that one day happening and so we'll change the gunshots. Again, trying to make this into like some kind of white supremacist thing. It just doesn't make any sense. And it hurts our cultural dialogue. And it inhibits our ability to actually come together and like do anything, not just about guns, but anything in general.

All right. We can talk about a million more things. Can you tell everyone, if you want to end on a final message, you can. Or just tell everyone where they can find you, how they can support you, all that good stuff. Final message is a, is a thank you to you. One for having me, but two for my wife and my circle loves you. because as your show name would suggest, women like to hear from other women. And they love feeling like they are not the only Christian conservative women out there.

And they don't need to be afraid of speaking their mind because there's somebody doing it on a big stage and they're taking the bullets for them. So there's my thank you to you. You're very popular in my circle. I don't matter. You can follow me on Twitter if you want at TJMO 28. I don't care too much about that stuff. No, you've got a lot of good things to say. So, yeah, follow you on Twitter.

You can see him on Jason. Whitlock's show, Fearless, probably every week. You're probably on there every week. Awesome. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come on. I really appreciate it. Thank you. All right, guys, I hope that you loved that conversation.

We covered a lot of ground. I know this was a long episode. I appreciate so much you guys listening. If you love this podcast, if you've learned anything from it, even if you disagree with me on a variety of things, but to appreciate the approach that we have, if you could please leave a five-star review. You don't have to give a long explanation. about why you love the show, although, of course, that means a lot to me.

Just leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. That would mean a whole lot. Also, I am wearing, if you are watching on YouTube, one of the many shirts that we have in our online store, and that is Millennials Against Low-Rise Jeans, because yes, we are. That is one of the causes that we care about. But we've got lots of products on our online store. The description of that is included, or the link to that is included in the description of this episode. Thank you guys so much for being here this week.

We will be back here on Monday. Have a great weekend. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype.

clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.